Thanks for all the postings so far, which are all interesting, and wise, especially about some of the limits of "new media" in the post-campaign period.

Some, however, have misread my initial postings. I never wrote that Bill Clinton hitting the campaign trail was "the" turning point in the race but only "a" turning point. I never said his offensive statements alone were the reason millions of African-Americans suddenly switched from Hillary to Obama but only that they really helped promote that process.

As for the economic crisis, not the Palin pick, dooming McCain: Polls showed that McCain had tied the score with Obama very briefly during the GOP convention but when details about Palin's background and complete lack of national or international experience quickly emerged, Obama took the lead again and never looked back. Yes, the economic crisis sealed McCain's doom but, in my view, he would have lost anyway because of Palin (along with the Bush legacy and the "change" motive). The one thing McCain had going for him was "experience" and he threw that away with the Palin choice.

Also, fitting into my earlier theme about the influence of new media: As someone who helped spread the first reports on Palin's background, which emerged from the Anchorage Daily News in Alaska, I can assure you that in campaigns past that would have been much delayed and truncated. No one, of course, receives that paper in the lower 48. The reports, day after day in the early going, appeared on the newspaper's Web site, which got record traffic. More importantly, people like me and dozens of others were madly linking to them and spreading the Palin facts far and wide, where they were quickly picked up by the mainstream. The message was always: The people who know her best know she is unfit for higher office.

This is in turn pushed forward the Charlie Gibson interview and even the Tina Fey impressions. Yes, those would have occurred eventually, but coming so quickly they knocked McCain for a loop before he could get going. And, along with the Couric interviews, they were viewed by millions on the Web who in the old days might have missed them. The mockery factor was multiplied. There are dozens of examples of this kind of Web-related impact in my book that have perhaps already been forgotten.

Just one example: I mentioned earlier the profound change last fall in the media spin on the four big debates. In each case, most of the mainstream anchors and pundits called the debates pretty much all even, often saying that McCain "did better than expected" or (laughably) that Palin "really held her own.." In the old days, this would have probably given the GOP some "momentum" and a bump for a week or two until, maybe, polls came out that showed little gain (or maybe the positive spin would have helped create a real GOP gain).

But last fall, that all changed. In fact, it was embarrassing to watch one network star after another call the debates a draw and then watch as the poll results and focus groups weighed in half an hour (not two weeks) later on the same channels showing that actually, viewers and uncommitted voters gave each of the debates to the Democrats OVERWHEMINGLY. Doh! And then that news was spread far and wide on the Web. "Momentum" stopped - spin reversed.

The reason Obama won? No, but a contributor, like all of the other things I have mentioned.