What You Got Wrong And Right

DesMoinesDem has a great idea - a cleansing confessional of what we got wrong. You first . . . Oh, you want me to go first. Well, can I start on a few things I got right? Ok, I was right about George Bush, Iraq, Alberto Gonzales, John Roberts, torture, warrantless wiretapping, Samuel Alito, running strongly on leaving Iraq in 2006, "throw the bums out," Lincoln 1860, the emerging Dem majority, no Iraq Debacle funding without a timeline, Social Security privatization, Obama as Media Darling and few others.

What I was really wrong about was thinking the Super Tuesday signalled that Obama's demographic limits would cost him the nomination. Obviously it was very close but as John Cole wrote to me - President Obama says hello (to be fair, I knew the Demo nominee would win the Presidency and ALWAYS said so).

Now its your turn.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Let's Knock Off the Talk About Preventive Detention | A Word On State >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I announced Joe Biden as VP (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:09:59 AM EST
    before Obama knew he was picking him.

    Ugh, what a gloater (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:58:56 PM EST
    Now predict something worthy of my adulation.  Start with the powerball numbers.

    A stroke of genius (none / 0) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:13:20 AM EST
    You weren't alone on it, though.  I vividly remember being excoriated by some here when I posted a supportive comment that the various political reporters and better-tuned-in pundits on TV were saying quite early that the betting was on Biden.

    I thought it was loony, and I still think it was loony, but it doesn't seem to have hurt, at any rate.


    My rights and wrongs: (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:36:54 AM EST

    1.  The primary results in certain states had no bearing whatsoever on whether Obama would carry them in the general.

    2.  The Jewish vote would go to Obama as usual, especially once Palin was selected (my mother was a poll sample of 1 on this).

    3.  There would be no Bradley Effect--why would racists lie to pollsters when they have no problem being racists at public rallies and videos.


    1.  I thought John McCain would run a honorable, centrist campaign.

    2.  Hillary would not campaign all-out for Obama.  She did that and more, and my hat's off to her.

    I was right that the media would crucify Hillary. (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:45:35 AM EST
    I was also right that Obama would get a free ride.

    I was wrong to think that our country could finally accept the idea as a woman as president.  

    The voters (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:03:16 AM EST
    clearly had no big problem with a woman as president.  It was the Village -- Washington pols and media -- who couldn't accept it.

    I'm with you (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by BernieO on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:43:07 AM EST
    I was not surprised at the Clinton hatred coming from both sides and, of course the media, but the blatant sexism was a shocker. Still is. Calling Hillary castrating, the Hillary Nutcracker (still for sale), Democrats proudly sporting "Sarah Palin is a c--t" t-shirts, etc.

    So I was very naive about the depth of sexism and the lack of penalty for displaying it openly. Since over half our population is female, this is particularly bizarre.


    i was wrong (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by sancho on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:50:45 AM EST
    to think that obama could not win the GE. my premise was that after hillary was defeated, the media would turn on obama. that is to say, i was precisely most wrong where btd was precisely most right.

    i am hoping now that i am wrong in thinking that obama is unlikely to push a progressive agenda where he can.

    Ditto that (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:00:45 AM EST
    Me, too, exactly.

    There's a big HOWEVER in here though in any pre-September predictions about the way the GE would play out, and that's the financial meltdown.  I think McCain was most likely headed for a close victory until that happened and he responded to it by running around like a headless chicken.

    I never posted my best prediction here, which was that McCain would likely pick Palin as his VP.  I'd heard about her and McCain's interest in her months before and it struck me as exactly the kind of thing he would do.  Of course, he came within a hair of picking Lieberman or Ridge, but still.

    I also said I thought the Obama's Grand Tour and Berlin speech would be a net negative, and I think I was right on that.


    Obama is just not (none / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:09:24 AM EST
    a very appealing guy to workaday Americans, and he gave them almost nothing until he finally began to talk like a mensch after the financial meltdown.  McCain is a known quantity, perceived as that "straight shooter" and definitely not Bush.  I actually thought the only combination that could lose this election for the Dems. was precisely this one, Obama versus McCain.

    In retrospect, Romney might have been (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:19:42 AM EST
    harder to beat this year. At the very least, he knows how to turn into the person he needs to be for any given election.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:30:37 AM EST
    but it's not clear to me that Romney could have carried on his act convincingly so long.  But that could be wishful thinking on my part since I've thought he was an oleaginous jerk of a phony from day one, yet the reasonably astute voters of Mass. fell for that act.

    But would he have appealed to (none / 0) (#26)
    by lucky leftie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:40:31 AM EST
    the religious right?  Some of them didn't like the fact that he is a Mormon.  

    I remember thinking that McCain was screwed no matter who he picked.  Lieberman and Ridge might have appealed to independents and moderates but would have turned off conservatives.  And clearly Palin solidified the base but turned off just about everyone else.  


    Thats really impressive... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:21:40 AM EST
    to have predicted palin that far ahead.  I was wrong in that I thought he was going to go with Mittens.  And I was wrong to think that would have been a bad choice, since the financial crisis would have saved them had rommney been picked.

    I was right that palin was going to be a train wreck, which I was saying well before the Couric interviews... I think maybe even a day after she was picked.


    I say I was right (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Saul on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:52:58 AM EST
    but it was never proven that if we knew all about Obama that we learned after Super Tuesday, then Hilary would have won on Super Tuesday and Obama would have been a foot note.

    I was wrong on so many things (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:17:16 AM EST
    that I hope I was wrong on the type of President Obama would make.

    I was wrong (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by WS on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:52:55 AM EST
    that Obama couldn't possibly win IN, NC, FL, etc.  At the end of the primary, I thought Obama was going to lose or have a close win but Obama is actually a great candidate and proved it with his campaign.  

    I thought McCain was going to be a better candidate than he was.  

    I was right when I thought Hillary can catch up in the popular vote with Kentucky, WV, and Puerto Rico but it wasn't enough.  She needed a clear popular vote victory to make an argument at the nomination and she didn't get that. Michigan's questionable status obfuscated the popular vote margin.  

    But you were right (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:20:37 AM EST
    when Obama finally had Michigan's and Florida's full votes restored at the convention.  Of course, then, that was the reason for the historic lack of a full roll call at the convention -- did you see how close that made the pledged delegate tally, after all?  But the party and the impatient media had spoken by then, so there it was.

    I was wrong (for 40 years) to think that the (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by feet on earth on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:01:22 AM EST
    Democratic Party is democratic. I dis not turn into a PUMA member, but I am still hissing at Donna Brazil and the like. I will never get over it.

    Me neither, says a former Dem (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:32:28 PM EST
    here, too.  That there would be sexism in the party hardly was a surprise, since I have worked with so many sexist Dems in it -- although their blatant frat-boy enjoyment of it was beyond expectation.

    What I still cannot believe is how many "libruls" fell for the blatant racism of the party -- the worst sort of racism there is, when it deemed that only by breaking rules, and only for one candidate, could that black candidate win its nomination.

    And then that the Dem party would kill public financing of campaigns -- well, thank heavens I already had left the party on May 31, three weeks before The Day That Campaign Reform Died.

    So I was wrong on so many counts to give so much of my time and money to the Dems for decades.  Their "anything to win" campaign for Obama shows they're no better than Republicans . . . and even more cynical and hypocritical, so that's saying something.  But it's something I want no part of anymore.


    What you said....escept that (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:37:34 PM EST
    I will work for and with Democrats at the local and state level to elect good candidates.

    I'm done with the national party aparatus, values, leadership...and I'm not happy with my state org either...still stuck with running both a primary and a caucus but only counting the caucus.

    I have no hope or trust in what the political future holds for my country...or the economic future, for that matter.

    My time, energy and money has turned to local elections and policy, parks and Habitat for Humanity.  At least I can see the results.


    Luckily, I'm not in a caucus state (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:01:07 PM EST
    so my state Dems disappoint me for other reasons.:-)

    Saves me a lot of money, too.  Hope those NuNeoDems have fat checkbooks to make up the difference. . . .


    NuNeoDems checkbooks (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:09:47 PM EST
    will fade away as the glow wears off and they discover they weren't the ones they were waiting for.



    You and I both CC. Indipendents in our (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by feet on earth on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:44:52 PM EST
    golden age and cured from the illness of party affiliation no matter what.

    Intellectually it feels good, emotionally I am still bruised and it feels I have been robbed.  None of my money or time will ever again go to any politicians.

    My vote? it did not go to Obama, it went against the McCain/Polin combo.  


    Really wrong... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by magster on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:05:59 AM EST
    ...on long primary's effect on general election campaign.  Instead of Clinton's attacks on Obama giving more ammo to McCain, the attacks had no ooomph when recycled.  In fact, there was not much left for McCain to gain traction with after Obama recovered from the Rev. Wright incidents. Obama was also a better GE candidate, especially in debates, because of the long process.

    Also wrong in thinking there was no way McCain could lose his exalted image as straight talk maverick.  His dishonest ads and cynical Palin pick turned the press off, and the press was McCain's strongest asset.

    That's usually the way (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:34:54 AM EST
    it goes with long tough primary battles, and Hillary wasn't even particularly tough on him as these things go, she was just relentless.

    The sole reason Rev. Wright didn't come back and bite him in the butt is that McCain totally ruled out using either him or Ayers in the campaign.  Ayers only came up at the end because Sarah went rogue.


    Exactly. The wailing and whining (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:03:34 PM EST
    and gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair about the primary campaign just told me how very young those whiners were.  They missed the dirty tricks of '72 and so much more.  They really hadn't watched politics being made before.  They will learn -- if they stay involved to take our places.  I'm done.

    If i had been McCain... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Salo on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:39:51 PM EST
    ...it would have been Wright 24/7.  It's almost as if he wanted to lose.

    never understood the big deal about Wright (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:57:15 PM EST
    it's pretty condescending for white persons to tell AA's that they have to think this country is outstanding because we allow them to be free...we allow them to be free...so be grateful...don't make any disparaging remarks boy...

    In Wright's lifetime persons of his race were treated like dogs by a large portion of our racist, dehumanizing mothers and fathers and of our bigoted grandparents of whom we all see so fond...

    Wright spewed hate, this is true...but anyone who believes that AA's shouldn't hold resentment is just trying to reason and pardon the IMMENSE sins of our parents and grandparents, b/c we can't think of them as bad persons in this regard...

    It's racist and condescending to tell people they have to love this country from day one, even if they don't hold equal status in the country or equal benefit from it...we allow them to live here, they should be grateful...

    and yet nothing was made about the immense hate-spewing coming forth from the likes of Hagee (or other general republican/evangelical leaders like Falwell, Robertson and Strang)...maybe b/c they are white...

    God bless america


    Dry humping the pulpit (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:30:32 PM EST
    when talking about the Clintons?

    Nope, not a Christian thing to do.

    NOTHING justifies that from a man of the cloth in any faith.  Period.


    most prominent men of faith who (none / 0) (#85)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:31:17 AM EST
    preach from the pulpit

    are not really that...

    that we know...

    you can preach against gays, but then have gay sex but it's okay because you believe in JC and can ask for forgiveness...

    nothing against preachers in general, just those in the public eye...for anyone who wants to be in the public eye is more about power and not about the teachings of JC...


    Now you contradict yourself (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    so I'm done; this cannot be a conversation.  Have fun somewhere else.

    my main point was why was there (none / 0) (#102)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:30:09 PM EST
    more scrutiny for Wright than for guys like Hagee...

    I understand the connection with Obama specifically, but I'm more worried about the broad evangelical connection with the Republicans and why the hate-spewing from the evangelicals gets a free pass by the media while a group of AA cannot feel disgruntled by America without backlash...

    I know, it's not a discussion too many americans wants to have...it's very touchy, as I can see with your response...


    If you were McCain, (none / 0) (#101)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:11:43 PM EST
    why would you want to lose by 13 points?

    Wrongs (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by koshembos on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:13:29 AM EST
    I was sure that Obama will lose the elections not because he was black but because in the primaries he won using muscle and money. Obama, however, was lucky to have the economic collapse happen in time to make McCain the least appealing candidate in a long time.

    I was sure that the media will support McCain over Obama. It wouldn't make much difference to the general voter, but does make a difference to the upper upper middle class that is the media and the people who are the bedrock of Obama supporters.

    Since the media has now invented the legend that Clinton's presidency was a flop, this was a rude awakening for me; I didn't think we are the Soviet Union were lies become official history.

    I knew Hillary Clinton would go all out (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:11:02 PM EST
    for Obama.

    Anyone who was paying attention to reality knew that, so it's hardly a significant observation.

    Surprised that McCain didn't go all out on Obama.  Doubt it would have worked either.

    Thought that Sarah Palin would be able to go the distance without making major errors.  Also thought the Media would be more forgiving of her.  Not sure why the Media jumped on her so hard.

    Not much Obama did surprised me.  He avoided the C-word almost completely.  He ran a solid campaign in a strategic sense, but continuously disappointed on substantial policy and vision.  This is why I keep saying that John Q Milquetoast (D) could have won with a good campaign - because I think Obama was John Q Milquetoast in terms of policy.

    Obama did do a great job of fund raising, but can he do it again?

    I won't make any predictions for 2010, but the midterms should be a real mixed bag due to regional economic fallout and party divisions.

    Palin and the media (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    "Not sure why the Media jumped on her so hard."

    1. Class
    2. Gender

    Deadly combination.

    and maybe (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    her tactics
    her contempt
    her divisive tactics

    Fatal flaw (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:59:16 PM EST
    in your argument is that they were ridiculing her before any of the things you cite emerged in their narrative.  Also, her "divisive tactics" are largely a creation of media interpretation.  She campaigned against Obama on things he was weak in, but the media and lots of folks on the blogs won't permit women candidates, apparently, to actually campaign.

    CF the Hillary campaign

    The only contempt I saw was toward Palin.  I saw none from her toward anybody else.

    She's a Republican.  She was treated here and elsewhere like some kind of mad harpy from hell.  She's simply not.  She's just a Republican, actually with pretty strong libertarian leanings.  You all had a great old time demonizing her and turning her into something she never was.  I wouldn't vote for her for selectboard of my town, but she's no monster, just somebody I disagree with on a bunch of stuff.


    Not to mention (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by BernieO on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:43:19 PM EST
    it is the traditional role of the VP candidate to do just what she did - attack. The Dems were mad at Lieberman for refusing to do so. Funny how the media was so shocked by this!

    no contempt from Palin? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:11:03 PM EST

    ya, if you're from the real america, I guess...


    Fatally flawed analysis (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:15:56 PM EST
    The media was awfully nice to Palin till she self-destructed with her interviews. When she first introduced herself to the nation at the Republican convention, she gave an extremely mocking and divisive speech (pitting small town values against big city "elitism" and "liberalism"). Yet, her speech was hailed as a brilliant one by the media. If Obama had ever given a speech like that, his political career would have ended then and there. Could Obama have ever mocked the value system of conservative Republican voters to appeal to the hard left Democrat voting base without being tarred as an angry revolutionary who nursed grievances against his country? Also, please do not see gender bias in places where it does not exist. It undermines arguments regarding real cases of gender bias. John Edwards was labelled the "angry candidate" throughout the campaign. Even after he finished second in Iowa, he was completely ignored by the media. The media went to ridiculous lengths to make fun of his $400/- haircut. Howard Dean was unfairly lampooned by the media during the entire course of his run for the Presidency in 2004. He was a thoughtful, well educated doctor who was also an extremely successful governor. Yet, he was portrayed as a maniac by the media.
    When someone says that her "opponent is palling around with terrorists" he/she has crossed a certain line of civility; it is divisive! Period! Palin was extremely contemptuous of people (probably more than half the country who she did not think of as "real Americans") who disagreed with her belief system. She was the one who was doing the demonizing, not the other way around. Ron Paul is also a Republican with very strong libertarian leanings. Yet, the majority of people who are on the other end the political spectrum and disagree with him on issues do not find him divisive. Most people in the left have constantly mocked our current President's intelligence and have also imagined the current vice President to be a monster. Yet, both of them are males with priveleged backgrounds!  Your carelessly constructed thesis about the distaste being gender related, does not therefore really hold much water if you consider the facts.

    Your carefully constructed (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 08:07:24 AM EST
    thesis about the evilness of Palin doesn't hold much water if you've ever paid attention to a national political campaign before.  There was nothing out of line about Palin's convention speech for a Republican convention speech.  And the time-honored traditional role for a VP nominee is to be the "attack dog."  So she got in a couple digs at Obama.  Standard stuff.  No need for smelling salts.

    Lots of "people on the left" have indeed mocked Bush's intelligence and regarded Cheney to be a monster.

    But the question was about the media treatment, and as you would know if you'd been following it from the beginning, the media didn't begin to turn against Bush Cheney until fairly recently, and both of them are still treated largely with respect, not ridicule and contempt, even after 8 long years.

    Palin once exuberantly greeted a big crowd by saying how nice it was to be among "real Americans."  Do you know who she was contrasting them with?  I don't.  She didn't say.  Perhaps she was contrasting actual voters with Washington insiders.  Has she ever said other parts of the country aren't "real Americans"?  No, she hasn't.  Did she keep up some theme about "real Americans" and not real Americans?  No, she didn't.

    This is my point.  You and a lot of others seized on one word and went ballistic with your own interpretations and extrapolations.

    Frankly, having heard a fair amount of her more recent interviews, as well as a lot of interviews with Alaskans who've covered her and dealt with her, she appears to be an extraordinarily good-natured and pretty tolerant person.  She's the only high-profile pro-life figure, for just one example, I have ever in my life heard volunteer the idea that pro-life and pro-choice people need to work together to reduce the number of abortions.  Most pro-life types absolutely refuse to go there, even when invited.

    She is, however, confident and strong-willed and ambitious, and that's her cardinal sin as a woman.

    No, she and Clinton aren't the only politicians who have been excoriated and ridiculed by the media.  But Palin's the first one I've seen other than Day Quayle to get excoriated and ridiculed from day one of their appearance on the national scene. And coming hard on the heels of the extremely ugly treatment of HRC, who has nothing in common with Palin but her sex, it's just a wee bit of a coincidence.


    The attacks are not equal (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:31:50 AM EST
    Saying Bush is stupid is VERY different then saying Obama is the "other"/ "foreign"/ "terrorist".  

    Your defense of Palin (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:57:38 AM EST
    is really erratic. Even if for the sake of argument I agree (which I actually don't) with what you wrote, that Palin and Quayle were the only politicians to get excoriated and ridiculed from day one of their appearance on the national scene, I do not see how you are making your case that the treatment of the media has a gender bias. For Heaven's sake, Dan Quayle was a male politician, a white male politician with a very priveleged background!
    The media in 2000 did say that GWB was not a very curious person and did not have the smarts of Gore, unfortunately, they also said that he was the candidate that people would prefer to have a beer with (which may have swayed a lot of votes). GWB also campaigned as a "uniter and not a divider". His campaign was also smart enough not to schedule any disastrous interviews. Palin should not really have any authentic complaints against the media because the media consistently harped that the common people in the country identified more with her (a mom who did not attend an Ivy League school) than with someone like Obama. She became a caricature only after her disastrous interviews and her portrayal on SNL (which picked up on those interviews). She did OK in the debate with Biden, the media was fair in its assessment that she held her own.
    If it comforts you, let me make it clear that it wasn't only her that I found divisive in the Republican Convention.  I am of the view that Rudy Guiliani (and also a number of other male politicians) gave very divisive speeches. Criticism of Palin therefore has nothing to do with her gender but everything to do with her actions.

    And Maybe Also (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by daring grace on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:12:24 PM EST
    Her demonstrated lack of credibility when it comes to national/international affairs.

    And the exceptionally clumsy way she was introduced to the national stage by the McCain campaign.


    GWB? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:30:49 PM EST
    Certainly Gore had Bush beat when it came to knowledge and understanding, but the media didn't beat up on Bush the way they did Palin and Bush was on the TOP of the ticket!

    Media Darling status is definitely real.


    There are idiots (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:15:34 PM EST
    Who shouldn't be presidents that are from her class and are her gender, the Republicans were just dumb enough and cynical enough to do it.  

    In my mind they media was incredibly nice to her.  The fact that it was even a debate that she was qualified to be president, frightens me to death.


    Okay: (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    Things I was right about:

    More than a year before the primaries, I predicted that Huckabee would be the sleeper candidate.  He wouldn't win the nomination, but he'd break out of the pack and win a number of primaries.

    I predicted that McCain would pick Palin as VP.

    The % results in a lot of Dem primaries.  Most notably OH/TX.  I think I was the only person on TL to call that night exactly.

    That the economy would collapse due to the housing bubble bursting, and that the Dow would drop to eight thousand and something.

    That Hillary wouldn't give up till the last primary, then (if she lost) she would campaign vigorously for Obama.

    Things I was wrong about:

    The major thing I was wrong about and it colored a lot of my predictions is I believed Hillary had more institutional support within the party than she did. Boy was I wrong!

    That this campaign would allow the blogosphere to have a mature discussion of gender and race.  I laugh at myself now for thinking such a ridiculous thing.

    The New Hampshire Primary results.  A lot of the Republican primary results.

    Things that just flat out surprised me:

    The massive support of Obama in the MSM.

    The endless sexism of the MSM.

    The rehabilitation of Teddy Kennedy.  Never thought I'd hear the MSM speak glowingly of him within his lifetime.  But after he endorsed Obama, they did.  

    And, even though the reasons were mercenary, it was nice to see, especially given the health problems he now faces.

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:34:25 PM EST
    Hillary would win primary
    Obama would pick Hillary as VP
    Not Biden as VP
    McCain would pick Lieberman as VP
    Palin big asset to McCain

    Obama would win Pres. by 6
    Pick up 7-8 Senate seats
    20+ house seats

    I was wrong about (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by mg7505 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:49:42 PM EST
    1. Hillary being a factor after the primaries. As much as the media tried, there was just no Hillary-related narrative that caught on.

    2. Palin being a game-changer (in McCain's favor).

    I was wrong about (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:25:13 PM EST
    The left blogs and media being reality based.  I totally did not see that coming.

    Oh, MAN! (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:11:27 PM EST
    A bigger shock to me than the Dem. Party establishment maneuverings or the media CDS and flagrant gender bias.

    I'm still trying to figure it out.  Virtually every single significant or semi-significant leftish blog except this one and sometimes Kevin Drum completely took leave of their senses one by one and shows no signs of a return to sanity.  They have pretty much become left versions of Redstate.  Amazing.

    What a huge, huge, huge letdown.


    I was wrong in thinking that: (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by pluege on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:04:21 PM EST
     1) there was enough racism in the US to overcome Americans' hatred for bush. I thought the Bradley Effect would win the day for the malignant republicans

     2) misogyny was rampant only in small percentage of the population, ergo I was surprised to learn that it is so widespread and so near the surface, e.g., that MSM pundits would openly engage in it on teevee.

    I learned that misogyny is a now bigger problem than racism.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:08:53 PM EST
    I learned that misogyny is a now bigger problem than racism.

    Problem for who? Seems to me that it all depends on who you are. It also seems pointless to turn the various flavors of hatred and bigotry into some sort of a competition.


    Not a competition.... (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    but there are differences - and they became interesting for all to see during this election. I end up thinking it's pretty complicated.

    If you think about the kind of institutional racism that keeps groups of people from getting ahead economically, personally, etc., then maybe racism is still much worse than sexism.

    But if you think about horrible, demeaning, denigrating discourse, then I think sexism is much worse than racism. What's tolerated/acceptable in public discourse and the public arena in general (nutcrackers, calculating b!tch, c*nt, iron my shirt, etc.) - well, the comparable racial epithets would never be tolerated on lefty blogs or the MSM or anywhere else. And that kind of talk has a trickle-down, very bad, effect on how women are viewed in our society.

    And most men didn't speak out against it at all. That still shocks me. For me, it's not so much the misogynists, but the silence of everyone else in the face of it. That fact tells me not much has changed.


    Sexism vs Racism (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by BigElephant on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:39:35 PM EST
    Sexism is worse than racism for white females, but that's about it.  Wright and Ayers like attacks would never stick to a woman.  A woman would never be considered a terrorist because she is simply a woman.  

    Furthermore, white men (who run this country) are a LOT more comfortable with white women than black men.  And worse... try being a black woman.  


    Good lord... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Thanin on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:36:54 AM EST
    unless youre a foreign, lesbian, disabled, non-Christian, elderly, infected, poor minority then just shut up about all this stupid crap because someone will always have it worse than you.

    On top of all that... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by BigElephant on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    I'm transsexual too!

    Darn... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Thanin on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:20:15 PM EST
    I knew I was gonna leave out some group.

    I was also wrong in believing (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:09:50 PM EST
    that misogyny wasn't nearly as big of a problem in America as racism...

    as a young male it's really opened up my eyes to the problem...

    I'd love for America to have a grand-scale conversation about this..

    I wonder if the problem persists in my age group or if it mainly exists in older males, namely the people who run the news networks and the old men in politics, and the old men who 'preach' from the pulpit...


    I actually think the younger generation (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    is much worse. Have you been to DKoS, TPM, etc?

    nope, this is the only blog I frequent right now (none / 0) (#62)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:44:08 PM EST
    most others are out of touch with the libertarian-type view...

    but if that's true then it is a serious problem...


    It's truly dispiriting (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:50:38 PM EST
    to see/hear young males talk the way they do about women. Archie Bunkerism apparently won't die.

    it doesn't help that a lot of the songs (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:13:59 PM EST
    that young persons listen to these days treat women as sexual objects and nothing more(then again, there are plenty of women who don't seem to mind that considering they listen to the songs too)...

    but now I'm starting to sound old...that darn music these kids listen to these days...


    Watching keynote during 2004 convention. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Burned on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:34:33 PM EST
    I knew Obama was going to run for president in 2008. Or more like the powers were setting him up to run.
    Everything else I was wrong about. Politically.
    As usual.

    this observation... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Salo on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    ...is all you needed to know.

    Who else could possibly sell an escalation in Afghanistan but Obama?  And there you have your answer to many of thei things that have happened in the press and party.


    Trifecta (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by robrecht on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:07:59 PM EST
    I was wrong about Hillary being the Democratic nominee.

    I was wrong about McCain retaining his media favored status.

    I was wrong about Obama being too inexperienced to run a very strong presidential campaign.

    I actually tried a similar thing on another site (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by kempis on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:30:52 PM EST
    ...in hopes of mending some fences. I had made some erroneous assumptions and so had others. I listed mine (Obama couldn't win PA, VA, etc.).

    And I was hoping that some Obama supporters who had predicted that Hillary would actively seek to undermine Obama's election would admit that they had been wrong. So far, nada.

    But anyway, I was wrong in thinking that:

    1. Obama couldn't win PA or would win it by a hair.

    2. Obama couldn't win VA.

    3. Obama couldn't win Indiana. (I'm still in shock over that one--and I bet so are a bunch of red state Indianans. :) )

    4. Palin would be a smart choice for McCain. (Man, is my face red. Like McCain, I've learned the importance of vetting before making these pronouncements.)

    I was wrong in thinking that: (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by pluege on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:40:58 PM EST
     1) the Bradley Effect would win the presidency for the malignant republicans. (Note, it may very well have if not for the financial disaster hitting and mcinsane blowing it)

     2) the racism in the country would be worse than the misogyny.

    Turns out the misogyny was off the charts (eye opening) and the racism not as bad as I expected.  

    Boy, was I wrong (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by snstara on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:59:09 PM EST
    about John Edwards!  His drop-out before the NJ primary spared me from compounding that poor call.  

    While I was right to vote for Hillary Clinton, I was obviously wrong about who survived the primaries.

    And, I was wrong about the Democratic Party. Their leaders badly mishandled the candidacy of the first serious female contender for the presidency in their party by refusing to address blatant sexism.  The party of the big tent couldn't handle two giant leaps of amazing diversity at once?  Who'da'thunkit?  

    I was right about McCain choosing Palin as VP. To be fair, it was a gut feeling about where McCain was going to go once Obama chose Biden.  I give a lot of credit to the data on this site, where she'd been mentioned as a possible VP candidate.  

    And, I was right to believe that whoever the Democrats ran in 2008 would win handily.  

    I was wrong to insist Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:11:10 PM EST
    relationship w/Rezko "would be an issue."  

    I was also wrong to think/hope Sarah Palin would no longer be of interest to the media after the election.  

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by lilburro on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:44:48 PM EST
    she has done more appearances post-election than during the campaign.  It's kind of absurd.

    She's a politician (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:56:16 PM EST
    I have to say it too, I got a chuckle out of one of Jeralyn's posts about Palin being opportunistic.  A politician without that gift isn't going to make it these days.  Palin isn't going anywhere though. Barring something in her personal life preventing her political participation I think she is headed for the new faces of the party that must now evolve....the Republican party.

    Wrong on some big all important ones (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:16:56 AM EST

    1. That media would go back to their true love John McCain after the nominations

    2. That McCain would moderate after the GOP convention

    3. Said Obama wouldn't carry Florida and would have trouble with Michigan.

    4. Said I'd be shocked if Obama carried NC and thought that Obama carrying Indiana was a fantasy


    1. The media would decide which primary candidates would get major play

    2. Media would pick the eventual nominees

    3. Media would pick the President


    the media has had a pretty major hand (none / 0) (#87)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:39:56 AM EST
    in electing presidents over the past couple decades...right?

    I don't remember too many news outlets that were harping on Bush's insider trading as much as Stewart's insider trading...


    Yes (none / 0) (#103)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 08:25:56 PM EST
    but this time they picked the Democrat and I suspect that some of that had to do with the unity schtick that Village pundits are always going on about.

    Uh, you got some time. . .? (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:04:51 AM EST

    When the polls tightened (none / 0) (#22)
    by lucky leftie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:32:33 AM EST
    after the GOP convention, I predicted that the election would be a nail biter. I thought Obama had about a 70% chance of winning.

    I predicted that McCain would have at least one angry f-bomb laden public meltdown and eagerly anticipated it.  Alas, didn't happen.

    Why? (none / 0) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:36:25 AM EST
    Why would you think "McCain would have at least one angry f-bomb laden public meltdown"?  He's never even come close to anything like that.  He does it in private, but in public he stifles it and just gets sullen.

    He's known to have (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lucky leftie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:45:51 AM EST
    a bad temper and has gone off on several colleagues.  I figured the stress of a tough campaign would put him over the edge.  

    Well, heck, if he got through (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:59:23 PM EST
    however many hundred years he's been in the Senate and that brutal 2000 campaign, I figure he's capable of holding his temper in public.  There are lots of people with bad, bad, ugly tempers (including our friend Big Dog, btw) who manage to keep pretty good control in public.

    Betting on an experienced professional politician to melt down in public is pretty much always going to be a losing bet.


    I thought obama would NOT fight back (none / 0) (#23)
    by seabos84 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:33:53 AM EST
    and I was so happy when he started responding to their lies with pretty effective (crisp, quick, easy to remember) put downs.

    I was really really really wrong about how well the ground game worked out - anyone remember how Jerry Brown was gonna get us college kids involved in '79 (or so?) --- YAWN ---

    and, I'm really really glad I was wrong on that count.


    Did it? Turnout reports are interesting (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:35:46 PM EST
    in that the ground really worked only in a few states to increase African American turnout.  Overall, turnout was less than in 2004 -- including in the vaunted youth vote that didn't do it again.

    What won for Dems was that others stayed home.  I guess it's a ground game of sorts to discourage some turnout while encouraging others . . . but in the long run, don't you wonder what it will take to duplicate this?  Who is going to be the African American nominee for the Dems in 2016?


    That is, turnout in proportion (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    to the population, per early reports from Curtis Gans' and others' decades of studies of this.  Perhaps actual numbers, too, but those still are being tallied.

    What really worked with Americans is early voting -- so many turned out to vote ahead of election day that the numbers didn't soar on election day, after all.  I think we'll see much more early voting in more states to come . . . and perhaps more can be done to protect against its inherent flaws, too.


    Not Sure If I'm Understanding Your Point (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by daring grace on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:36:17 PM EST
    According to this source, overall turnout as measured by the number of votes cast in the presidential election was up by about five million in 2008 compared to 2004. (127,242,580      vs.122,293,548)

    And while it's true that more people voted the Republican ticket in 2004 (62,040,610), even if the Repubs had duplicated that number in 2008, Obama (with a total vote of 67,026,721) would have beaten McCain anyway.

    Granted, I'm not a numbers person, but it looks to me that what won for Obama is that he got many, many of the votes of independents and 'Reagan Dems' who in previous years went Repub. Turnout can't be the total story...


    See again: percentage of population (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:36:07 PM EST
    which is different from simply numbers, since the population has grown, too.  Remember denominators?

    For more on this, google Curtis Gans and turnout and such terms for his stats from this election and for almost 40 years now.


    The 1964 elections (none / 0) (#82)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:35:50 AM EST
    were held 2 years after the Cuban missile crisis when the world came perilously close to nuclear annihilation, 1 year after JFK's assassination, in the midst of the civil rights struggle and the early stages of the Vietnam war. In the run up to the Presidential elections, Rockefeller Republicans and Democrat nominee had convinced large sections of the country that Barry Goldwater was too extreme to be President; he would plunge the United States in WW3 (still a potent fear just 19 years after WW2 ended, in the midst of the Cold War) which would end in nuclear holocaust. "These were the stakes" of that election. The 1968 elections were held during the high point of the Vietnam War and a year in which Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated. It is therefore not surprising that the 1964 elections and 1968 elections had the highest percentage turnout (64-65% of voters) in modern US history.
    The fact that percentage voter turnout in 2008 was the highest since the 1964 and 1968 elections (so the highest in 4 decades) and within 2% points of the high water marks of the 1960s is a testimony to the enthusiasm that Obama generated in the 2008 elections; there is nothing in these data which indicates that actual voter participation did not live up to pre-election enthusiasm for the candidate. The youth level (18-29 years) participation in the 2008 election was also at its highest level since the 1972 election (when many voters were drawn to the polling booth only because of the military draft).
    I was also surprised to find out that percentage turnout in the 1992 and 1996 elections was only in the low to mid fifties.

    Yes, I know. I was there. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:31:10 AM EST
    But thanks for the research.

    Obama can't claim responsibility (none / 0) (#34)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    for depressing GOP turnout.  The main factors for that were, in order: Bush, McCain, Palin.  (The Economy, of course but I'll lump that in with "Bush".)

    2010 is gonna be fun, fun, fun!


    Btw, I didn't say "GOP turnout" (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:37:22 PM EST
    I said non-Dem turnout.  I have yet to see analyses that don't make faulty assumptions.  For example, maybe some who stayed home or didn't vote the top of the ticket were former Dems. :-)

    'turnout' I was just going on CW (none / 0) (#77)
    by seabos84 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:31:20 PM EST
    that more turned out blah blah blah.

    I haven't looked at any numbers ... I did see a NYT graphic on the change in Dem / Thug vote by county and except for Appalachia and a swath into the middle most of the country went blue ...

    but ... whatever.

    I got have a math degree - and almost every stock market / economy / political guru has:

    1. a different set of variables they consider critical,

    2. a permutation of some subset they swear by,

    3. an appalling arrogance,

    4. a reliance on the near total American illiteracy about arithmetic that allows the arrogance to look like intelligence.


    Not sure what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:39:35 PM EST
    but total turnout is just simple arithmetic.  Percentage of population gets a little more difficult, but still not calculus or something.

    Total numbers look to be up a bit from 2004 -- but not turnout as a percentage of the population.

    And 2008 didn't set a record -- the 1964 record still stands.


    is that % of population just taking (none / 0) (#86)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:37:23 AM EST
    into consideration voting population...I mean I guess it would have to otherwise it would be pointless...but I figured I'd ask anyway...

    Turnout Reports contradict your point (none / 0) (#83)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:10:35 AM EST
    The voter turnout reports contradict your point. If the voter turnout % is in the low 60% [link ], it will be at its highest level [link ] in 4 decades, at par with what you had in the 1960s. 2008 saw the second largest youth [voter turnout] in US history (after 1972).

    Come on, people (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    Let's cop to being wrong about something that comes with a bit of embarassment.  So far I hear "I was wrong" about things that, really, come with no amount of lump taking.  I was wrong about 9/11, and my first instinct WAS that Sadaam had something to do with it.  Now THAT was dumb.  I was quickly relieved of this with a bit of research, but still, I thought Sadaam initially.

    Anyone hear want to cop to being wrong about their own prejudices?  I have a huge prejudice against the monied class, and I was convinced they would never let Obama get elected.

    What about Palin, Tent?  You weren't wrong about her at all?

    Wrong and right (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lora on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    I was wrong in thinking that the Mouth Piece Media would turn against Obama and for McCain.

    I was (thankfully) wrong in thinking that GOP dirty deeds would take the election away from Obama and give it to McCain.

    The American people are who they are, and not who the media say they are.  I'm proud of us.

    I believe I have been and am still right to be skeptical of the integrity of our election system.  What we can't see can hurt us when it comes to counting the vote.

    a deceased Democrat should have been (none / 0) (#49)
    by pluege on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:54:12 PM EST
    able to win this year. This year is once in century election. Those getting jizzed up over the magnificence of Obama are fools. Obama is a pol. Progressives are going to be mighty disappointed in 4 years as to what they actual achieve for it will be more notable for what isn't achieved.

    Are you (none / 0) (#104)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 08:35:30 PM EST
    going on record with that?

    My Rights and Wrongs in 2008 (none / 0) (#54)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:09:08 PM EST
    (1) I expected Obama would win the GE handily. I [predicted] on May 26, 2008 that Obama would win every state that Gore won in 2000. The prediction was made just days after Obama received a drubbing in the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, when the media was obsessed with promoting the narrative that Obama had a serious white working class problem, a white women problem, a Hispanic problem, a Catholic problem and a Bradley effect problem that would eat into large sections of the traditional democrat base (according to the general thinking prevalent at that time, even a reliably blue state like New Jersey would be at play if Obama became the nominee). I also made a list of 13 additional states (besides the states that Gore won) which would be toss ups. I was 100% certain that Obama would win more than 50% of the mentioned toss up states. 11 out of these 13 states mentioned at that time really became competitive (only exceptions were Nebraska and Kansas but even in Nebraska, Obama could snatch 1 electoral vote). My electoral ceiling for Obama was 372 EVs, he got 365 EVs.

    (2) I was correct in picking almost every demographic that would break heavily in favor of Obama (I expected white working class women and Hispanics who had voted overwhelmingly for HRC in the primaries to break strongly for Obama in the GE).

    (3) I was correct in my assessment that the debates would make Obama and break McCain.


    (1) Vice Presidential candidates:
    Biden was not in my short list of 5-6 candidates that I expected Obama to pick from. My short list had Bayh, Kaine, Clark, Sebelius and even Sam Nunn or Bob Graham. When rumors started to fly around about the possible choices in the week before selections were made, I thought it was a toss-up between Bayh and Nunn.
    I was almost certain that McCain would pick a women VP candidate or a Republican politician from the South or Romney (I did not think that Romney would be McCain's own choice, however I felt that the Republican establishment would force him on McCain because he was dependent on them to raise money). I expected the choice to narrow down to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Romney and Palin. However, after the troopergate story emerged (a few weeks before the VP picks), I thought that Palin was no longer in contention. After I heard that Kay Bailey Hutchinson had ruled herself out, I thought that McCain had no other choice but to pick Romney.

    (2) I expected the tone of the GE campaign to be more civil than it actually was. I knew that McCain was the strongest candidate that the Republicans could put up in the GE, yet I hoped that he would win the Republican primaries because I expected him to run a more civil campaign than anyone else who was in contention among the Republicans. Palin could have easily introduced herself to the nation (in the Republican Convention) as Obama did in 2004 with an inclusive speech, instead of the mocking one that thrilled her fan base. What a wasted opprtunity!

    To sum up most people here... (none / 0) (#94)
    by BigElephant on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    I was right about most things of substance.

    I was wrong about how evil people who disagree with me really are.  And how pretty much everyone is against me, including the media.

    Sheesh BTD, the only thing you have in (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:51:28 PM EST
    common with Bush is how often you discover yourself to have been wrong :)  Ummm, what did I get wrong?  Well, that the AUMF was going to guarantee a war in Iraq comes first to mind.  Secondly, that Obama's past relationship with Wright and his brand of theological thinking was going to become explosive.  Oh yeah, and that I could trust the word's coming out of Colin Powell's mouth.  What was I right about?  Hmmmm, that the must have this minute or the world will explode bailout bill was not going to free up the interbank frozen credit.  And that day in March when my husband got on that bus with all of those other soldiers and then quickly ran down the bus stairs and around it to kiss me and say, "See ya in 90 days".  He hadn't kissed me all morning, heck he hadn't kissed me all week....I was too pissed to kiss and what he ran off the bus to say to me didn't help a bit either!  With fire shooting out my eyes at nobody in particular except maybe God I bitterly laughed and told my husband he was too naive for further words and that I would see him next year.  And so it was.

    My best call of the election (none / 0) (#100)
    by Don in Seattle on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:10:45 PM EST
    was this one from Sep. 16, right around the inflection point near McCain's high-water mark.