[Eagle Eye]

And in this case, it meant Obama got the additional 5 percentage points he needed to seal the deal

What that really means is that Obama was such a horribly weak candidate that he needed 8 times the money for less than 5% points even with all the MSN running cover for him!

And it shows that McCain was such a disaster that he couldn't beat a horribly weak candidate!

May the worst man lose instead of the best man win?

[Zhang Fei]

And it shows that McCain was such a disaster that he couldn't beat a horribly weak candidate!

I think his principal mistake was to go for Federal financing. That limited him to $80m. Reagan couldn't have won, if he had only had 1/8 of his opponent's funding. Remember the movie "300"? In real life and on-screen, the "300" lost. They gave a good account of themselves, but they *lost*. Note that I'm no McCain fan, but the first principle of post-mortems is to figure out which one of these things is different from the usual run of things. In this case, it was the money. Bush raised $600m to win against Kerry. McCain tried to do it with $80m. It was a bridge too far.

[rlferny]

I was thinking about his. Obama had almost 24-7 worship in the media and could only garner 52% of the vote and I'm sure there is a large percentage of that that was fraudulent.

There are a lot of American people that are quit as dumb as we thought. It's not as bad as we think. We could start a very good opposition with the 55 million that voted McCain. I'm sure a majority of the McCain votes were Pro-Sarah and anti-Obama and not Pro-McCain.

I think the people in the rust belt need to clean out locally and then maybe then can have real election.

[pctech]

I wonder why no one is bringing up the fact the OBAMA LIED about what funds source we was going to use. If he done like McCain and used the same funds source he wouldn’t have had the money to have all them damned ads that I hated so much to see and he wouldn’t have stolen Indiana, virginia, North Carolina, Florida, etc.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

What that really means is that Obama was such a horribly weak candidate that he needed 8 times the money for less than 5% points even with all the MSN running cover for him!

[SatinDoll]

“...Obama was such a horribly weak candidate that he needed 8 times the money for less than 5% points...”

Yes, and you’re right about it only could have been done with support of the MSM running interference and NOT publishing the truth about Obama.

[newzjunkey]

Or maybe it means McCain/Palin was such a strong candidate Obama could only win with the deck stacked in his favor including "8 times the money."

McCain is not to blame here. Thanks to W's inept and incompetent leadership he had a very tough hill to climb. He was doing fine until the mini-meltdown of the economy.

Palin was not without her faults as a candidate either.