“Wow, I’m pretty sure that’s the largest check StandUp has ever gotten,” said Tom Hayden, co-executive director of the organization’s Chicago chapter. “I just continue to be amazed with what students can accomplish. It’s incredible.”

Hayden echoed earlier remarks he gave on stage, imploring students to look into volunteer opportunities with StandUp for Kids. “We would love to have Northwestern students as volunteers in any capacity,” he said. “I really hope they learned enough about us that they would want to be involved.”

Brian Haslip, a national trainer with StandUp, agreed. He said that getting some Northwestern volunteers would help take some of the pain away from the events’ close. “Honestly, it’s sad. I got to know the DM exec board members so well,” he said. “It’s just weird that I won’t get to see them anymore.”

That combination of pride and sorrow could also be found among the event’s organizers. “The thing I love about NUDM is that it has the ability, in my humble opinion, to unite the campus in a way nothing else can,” said Finance Committee Co-Chair Allister Wenzel.

Wenzel helped to oversee Dance Marathon’s money management, a daunting task given the amount involved. This year’s event raised $854,396 overall, $461,546.73 of which went to StandUp for Kids.

“That’s a lot of blood, sweat and tears. The aggregate amount of effort that went into that number is absolutely incredible,” said Wenzel. “In a game where every dollar counts, imagine what everything we raised can do.”

The exec members all posed with the giant check emblazoned with all the money raised. After exchanging a few hugs with her colleagues, Executive Co-Chair Lauren Troy surveyed the emptying dance floor.

“The board did everything they possibly could. We worked so well all year and this was a great culminating moment,” she said.

For better or worse, it’s now time for all the organizers to wave goodbye to Dance Marathon and return to their daily lives. And what’s an exec member to do now that DM is over? “Sleep, reintroduce myself to my family, then sleep again,” said Troy. “That pretty much sums it up.”

“This is awesome!” Weinberg sophomore Jessy Barnes yelled as “Summer Nights” from Grease blared in the background. “I’m pretty sure I’m more excited than anyone here.”

If the cheers erupting all over the dance floor were any indication, however, Barnes has a lot of students to compete with. As the tent rocked, Communication senior Cary Shapiro surveyed the scene, nodding in bliss. “I have never felt better,” he said with confidence.

Many committee members took a break to break it down, dancing energetically after 28 hours’ worth of hard work. “It seems like a complicated thing because of all the people involved,” said Weinberg sophomore Ritu Doshi, who serves on the Dancer Relations Committee. “But it’s been phenomenal. Everything pulled together.”

That’s not to say every dancer has been unaffected by the lack of sleep. McCormick freshman Taiyo Sogawa described the experience as “hazy but awesome.” “I’ve lost track of time,” he said before howling along to Shakira’s “She Wolf.”

Still, the rehabilitating power of Block Ten is a sight to behold. Participants that had been begging for sleep mere hours ago were now dancing with gusto as if the event had just begun. It’s tough at first, “but then you move faster and it’s exhilarating and delirious,” said Barnes. “Best night of my life.”

Tickets will be physically sold at the Norris Box Office rather than the Web site, and students will be able to purchase one ticket per WildCard.

Tickets to see the “30 Rock” and “Saturday Night Live” star sold out in 30 minutes when they were first released on Friday, Jan. 29. Fans who missed out still have a chance to cram into Pick-Staiger Concert Hall at 7:30 p.m. to see the show.

Kevin Sullivan contributed reporting. More updates will be provided as news breaks.

“I thought it was really funny,” said Weinberg freshman Katie Raynolds, who witnessed the incident. “I admire whoever is willing to streak in this weather.”

With some clad in nothing but snow boots and others waving their clothes in the air, the participants ran for approximately two minutes before retreating from the quad. Many spent the whole time yelling in glee, their swell of pride making up for any shrinkage occurring elsewhere.

“I was impressed by Northwestern on this one,” said a Communication sophomore who took part. “Most students don’t have the guts to do something like this.”

He noted that the streakers were not affiliated with any particular organization, saying that it was a “pretty eclectic group of people.” Another participant, a McCormick sophomore, agreed on the impromptu nature of the event.

“I don’t really know how it started,” he said. “I just got a text and was happy to join.”

A modicum of planning, however, was apparent. Monday was Pref Night, the last night of sorority recruitment, and 7:30 p.m. was chosen because Potential New Members would be lined up outside in prime viewing position.

“A lot of the girls were pretty receptive,” the Communication sophomore said. “Most people seemed to enjoy the show.”

This sentiment was shared by Raynolds. “Rush can get really serious and intense,” she said. “It lightened up the mood a little bit – everyone seemed entertained.”

Girls lined up at the end of the route got an even bigger treat (relatively speaking), as some streakers ended their dash by diving with abandon into the snow. “It was very unexpected,” said Louise Hunter, a Communication freshman. “This one guy just fell in the snow. I think he was making a snow angel or something.”

“Yeah, I ended with a couple snow angels,” said the McCormick sophomore. “I thought it was really beautiful.”

For those who want to see the event for themselves, one enterprising witness posted a video of the streakers that can be found here. The clip contains what some would call excessive male nudity and is not for the faint of heart.

Northwestern fans grieve the overtime loss to the Auburn Tigers by singing the Alma Mater after the 2010 Outback Bowl. Photo by Katherine Tang / North by Northwestern

I can take myself back to Tampa in an instant. I close my eyes for a moment and there I am, falling to the rain-soaked cement of Raymond James Stadium as the Auburn Tigers rush the field and the purple faithful turn away in anguish. The flashback leaves me in the same condition – part anger, part emptiness, part steadfast refusal to accept what I witnessed – I was in when it happened.

It is hard for some to understand such deep emotional attachment to the outcome of a seemingly insignificant event. “Don’t worry,” we’re told, “It’s just a game.” I concede that, on a basic level, it makes little difference that the group of men I supported carried a leather ball into a painted rectangle fewer times than the group I did not support. But what these well-meaning naysayers fail to grasp is that this attachment is both a testament to an institution and a connection to the people who are a part of it.

When it comes to big-time college football, it is admittedly easy to become jaded. Off-field scandals, recruiting violations and student athletes who only live up to half of that moniker take their toll on fans and followers, causing issues with the sport as a whole to obscure the magic of watching fellow students compete. A recurring personal theme at Northwestern has been my amazement at the talents of those around me and I don’t think I’m alone. It’s this sense of childlike wonderment – finding out that your roommate’s writing a novel, that the girl down the hall is an incredible violinist, that the guy in your econ class does Shakespeare in his spare time – that should underscore every game.

More than anything else, the Outback Bowl loss has shown me how grateful I should be to the team for making me care this much. That so many students and fans can get so depressed based on something that’s “just a game” speaks to the connection fostered between members of the Northwestern community. Through our pain, our disappointment and our sorrow, those of us in the stands that day could take pride, if not solace, in knowing that the players leaving the field were going through the same thing.

At the same time, this strong bond makes such losses all the more heartbreaking. It’s hard to overplay the impact of Northwestern football’s past on our expectations in the present – over six decades without a bowl win weigh heavily on the program’s shoulders. Every bowl game presents an opportunity: not to rewrite history, but to move past it. The Outback Bowl was the latest in a series of shots at vindication for a football team, a fan base and an entire community.

As I think about this history and reflect upon the game, it’s hard to avoid making a common fan mistake. We deserved a victory, I tell myself. We’ve suffered for long enough, our players have given so much – we deserved to win that game. Of course, to paraphrase Clint Eastwood, deserve’s got nothing to do with it. Like Sisyphus and his boulder, the Wildcats seem almost preordained to get as close as possible to victory before ultimately falling short. Dwelling on this, however, does more harm than good. When players and fans get too wrapped up in history, they can lose sight of what’s most important – the next game on the schedule (even if it’s not for another nine months).

I blink and it’s New Year’s Day again. For the hundredth time the game is replayed in my mind, and for the hundredth time we fall two yards short. The sadness still hits like a gunshot, but it’s also strangely comforting. As the game ends and I fall to my knees, it’s because I have a profound attachment to the team leaving the field. I am fortunate enough to go to school with my sports heroes, to take classes with them, go to parties with them and show up every Saturday knowing that their emotional investment on the field can be approached by mine in the stands. Win or lose, we all know we’re a part of something bigger – and that’s what will make the next win all the more rewarding.

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana speaks at a rally for John McCain in Kenner, LA on June 3, 2008. Photo by dsb nola on Flickr, licensed under the Creative Commons.

With the Democrats in control of both Congress and the White House, Republicans have to play the unfamiliar role of the opposition party. Their response to President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package, with a lot of complaining backed up by a few poorly planned threats, shows that the GOP has a lot of work to do if it wants to compete in future elections.

While resistance to the stimulus bill is to be expected, a few Republican governors have taken it a step further. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Sarah Palin of Alaska have said that they are planning on turning down some of the funding. “This administration and this Congress are poised to mortgage the economic future of my four boys and the millions of young Americans just like them,” Sanford said in a political commentary piece on CNN.com. “To me, that’s simply not a morally acceptable outcome.”

What Sanford and the others don’t understand, however, is that doing nothing in the face of such an economic crisis would be so much worse. Obama was elected in large part because Americans trusted him to lead the country through its economic struggle. For governors to withhold badly needed money from their constituents is irresponsible, and for them to do it because of partisan differences is just petty.

Jindal in particular needs to be singled out for his decision, as Louisiana has a bit of a history with poor government response to its troubles. His opposition is aimed at stimulus money meant to expand unemployment insurance. In a state still reeling from Hurricane Katrina, denying unemployment insurance just seems wrong.

Political ambition may also factor into this defiance. Three of the four governors mentioned — Sanford, Jindal and Palin — have been brought up as likely contenders for the 2012 presidential election. Their opponent, of course, will be the incumbent Barack Obama. To win the Republican nomination in a few years, a candidate will have to prove to the conservative base that he or she stood up to Obama and is willing and able to defeat him.

If the stimulus doesn’t work out as planned, these three potential candidates can use the issue the way Obama used the war in Iraq during his run — they were opposed to it from the start. By refusing funds, however, they are trading financial aid for potential political capital.

You know these are strange times when Arnold Schwarzenegger emerges as the voice of reason. In an interview with ABC, the California governor said that the President needs “team players.” “You’ve got to go beyond just the principles,” he said. “You’ve got to go and say, ‘What is right for the country right now?’” Citizens have seen the economy spiral further and further downward; they want the government to do something.

This is where the governors in question are bound to fail. It’s more than fine for them to argue over portions of the bill. It’s their duty as the loyal opposition to fight for conservative principles. In the end, though, refusing money from the bill just looks irresponsible. It would be unfair for GOP politicians not to stand up for their ideals, but it’s just as unfair for Louisianans, Mississippians, South Carolinians and Alaskans to be denied economic aid because their leaders are too partisan to see the need or too arrogant to care.

When I found out that I would be getting a ticket to attend the presidential inauguration, I was ecstatic. Fully aware of Barack Obama’s eloquence, I expected that hearing his undoubtedly historic speech in-person would be the highlight of my trip, if not the highlight of my life. What ensued, however, was a journey that brought me from spotting snipers to buying action figures, from singing Bon Jovi with a girl I’d just met to contemplating the logistics of rebelling against the government. The entire trip, not just the speech, was what made the experience.

In order to get into Washington, D.C., I had to fly home to New Jersey and spend my Sunday morning on the Amtrak to D.C., Joe Biden-style. Both the flight and the train were filled with Obama supporters, and none could contain their excitement about the historic event. I felt a little bad for the few Republicans who must have been traveling with us, but to the winner go the spoils, and our spoils included obnoxiously-sized buttons and lots of chanting.

Arriving in the capitol, the first thing I noticed was that there were cops everywhere. The entire city had turned into N.W.A.’s worst nightmare: Many streets were closed to make room for the police cars, bomb squad trucks, F.B.I. vans and Humvees that were constantly patrolling the area. A pastime among many visitors was pointing out the security snipers that were strategically positioned on buildings all over the city. It was like a game of Where’s Waldo, if Waldo wore a black jumpsuit and was capable of blowing your brains out from 1,000 yards away.

I had arrived in time to see the We Are One concert, which kicked off the inaugural events. Anyone who had taken John McCain’s “Celebrity” ad to heart would have probably suffered a coronary at this show’s star-studded guest list. Performers from Bruce Springsteen to Garth Brooks to Shakira appeared, interspersed with readings by the likes of celebrities such as Steve Carell, Tiger Woods and Samuel L. Jackson.

It seemed to me that most of the musicians simply played their patriotic tune and left, which left it up to U2 to provide us with a personal message. After concluding “Pride (In the Name of Love),” which contained an awkward shout-out to Joe Biden of all people, Bono stared solemnly into the audience and told us that the American Dream is a dream shared by “Europe, Africa, Israel… and Palestine!”

Monday held no official events, so the Mall turned into a bizarre bazaar of Obama kitsch. Some items were standard: t-shirts, buttons and hats. Others were a little more out-of-the-ordinary: One could purchase Obama soap, sunglasses, and a lotion titled “O-Balm-a.” Some products were just inappropriate. Can we now sex up our lovers in Obama-themed lingerie? Yes we can!

Local shops and citizens selling shirts out of their vans weren’t the only ones who got to participate in the whimsy of unbridled capitalism. Several larger companies incorporated the inauguration’s imagery into their ads. Metro stations were plastered with posters with the tagline “Embrace change.” Pepsi handed out scarves and buttons that said “Hope,” but with the “O” replaced by the Pepsi logo. Given the Obama campaign’s success with taglines and branding, expect a lot of corporate piggybacking while his approval ratings are still high.

Generally, the entire event was a huge Obama lovefest. I had expected to see a lot of protesters or pamphleteers, but all I got was a few fundamentalist Christians with signs and a bullhorn. A crowd had gathered as one of them screamed about how God had turned his back on America. Their signs called attention to “baby killing women,” “porn freaks” and “sports nuts,” among others, to let them know that judgment is coming. A few college students eventually started to drown them out with an Obama cheer.

On the other side of the spectrum was a man who continuously waved around a huge sign that said “We have overcome.” This man, who was white, was very popular among those looking to take pictures. I asked myself inwardly whether or not a white man could really decide that “we have overcome,” but decided not to ruin his moment by voicing the question.

Even though I had a ticket, I still had to wake up early the next morning to get a good spot for the inauguration. My day started at 5:30 am, but it began even earlier for many other people. If you’ve ever seen one of those Animal Planet shows where they have clips of migrating wildebeests, you might have a sense of what it was like to crowd through the closed-to-traffic city onto the Mall. I then waited in line for two hours before I was able to pass through a security checkpoint and get my place about 150 yards from the Capitol. Many complained about the cold, but January’s subzero temperatures in Chicago had forever altered my perception of weather. Ten degrees in D.C. was balmy by comparison.

In line, I was surrounded by groups of friends and relatives. Being a lone ticket-holder, I was forced to live vicariously through their conversations; my most in-depth communication at the time was telling a family from New York that I was from New Jersey. This all changed when a woman behind me, upon seeing the security gates up ahead, cried that we were halfway there. The girl standing next to me and I broke out simultaneously into the chorus of Bon Jovi’s “Livin’ on a Prayer,” and we bonded instantly. She and her friend were freshmen at UCLA, and they kept me sane through the grueling waiting process.

Once we got in, the buzz on the Mall was all about the president-elect, although no one called him by his name; Obama was simply referred to as He. “When is He going to take the oath?” strangers would whisper to one another. “Will He be walking out with Michelle?” “What do you think He’ll say in His speech?”

The crowd grew restless as His appearance was delayed by superfluous things like a classical music performance, the introduction of those on the inaugural planning committee and Joe Biden being sworn in as vice president. Looking backward at the millions of people assembled to watch, I began to think about what would happen if we were an angry mob instead of a hopeful one. We could have easily stormed the building and probably taken control of the federal government. Worried by my own line of thinking, I nearly panicked when I saw a man pull out a small briefcase and assemble what looked like a high-powered sniper rifle. It turned out to be some huge, ultra-slick camera –- he must have been able to capture every one of Obama’s shiny white teeth with a zoom like that.

Finally, it was time for the speech itself. I remember liking it, although nothing specific was all that memorable. There was no real standout moment, like FDR’s “fear itself” line or JFK asking us what we can do for our country. Obama said that the economy will improve with work, that he will change Bush’s general policy positions and that America can beat terrorists. Don’t get me wrong: All of these are good points to make. In the end, though, we know the reasons we voted for Obama and Obama knows what he was put in office to do. The speech served as nothing more than a reaffirmation of the new president’s purpose over the next four years.

Walking out into the densely packed streets of downtown D.C., I heard a number of people telling family and friends that they had “witnessed history.” I think this is selling the public a little short. The massive crowd, more so than the speech, is probably how this inauguration will be remembered. While Barack Obama achieved a great deal to get to where he is today, he couldn’t have done it without winning all of those votes. My point is that, for all those who watched this moment, either from the Mall, on a television, over the Internet, or across some other medium, you really didn’t witness history. You made it.

The soap opera that is Illinois politics has been thrust onto the national scene, and brings with it all the appeal of watching a car wreck. At the center of the maelstrom is Sen. Roland Burris, whose appointment to Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat led to a bitter fight within the Democratic Party. Burris won the battle over his confirmation, but he’s poised to lose the war over his political legitimacy. With his reputation at stake, the Senator has mishandled his situation and projected a poor image that may be tough to overcome.

The man who appointed Burris, Rod Blagojevich, is a Northwestern graduate who has reached a level of national notoriety normally reserved for alumni who enter acting. In July of last year, only 13 percent of Illinois voters thought he was doing a “good” or “excellent” job — numbers so low, even President Bush would laugh at them. And this was before he was arrested on federal charges that included attempts to sell Obama’s Senate seat.

Many party leaders, including Dick Durbin, Howard Dean and Obama himself, called for Blagojevich’s resignation. A quick exit would have minimized damage and let Illinois Democrats regroup. The wily governor, however, had a trick up his sleeve. While Democrats were watching horizontally and vertically, he hit them diagonally. A black former attorney general with 16 years of public service experience and complete detachment from the ongoing scandal? Pretty sneaky, sis!

Despite at first being publicly denied entry to the Senate, Democrats have had to make nice and make room for Burris after his swearing-in on Thursday. This may seem like a victory for Burris, but he actually played his cards completely wrong.

Burris was chosen by a governor charged with corruption, a high-profile association likely to stick with him. He fought tirelessly to gain his seat and seemed to make no friends in the process. Finally, Burris is 71 years old. His stay in the Senate probably won’t be long enough for him to get rid of the attached stigma and earn respect as a politician and legislator.

The logical first step would have been to turn down Blagojevich’s appointment. Burris could have publicly announced that the Governor had chosen him before saying something like, “I wish to be your Senator, but not at the behest of a governor who has been arrested for corruption. I am turning down the offer.” The benefits here are twofold: Public opinion would look kindly on Burris for his staunch anti-corruption stance and he would be set up as the front runner for either an appointment by a lieutenant governor or in a special election. This way, he could be chosen for the seat on his own terms and act as an honorable foil for the disgraced governor.

Burris chose to act differently, and it has cost him. A recent poll showed that 52 percent of Illinois voters oppose his appointment. He has come across as overambitious and slightly crazy, as if all he wants is to be able to add “United States Senator” to the accomplishment list on his creepy, already-built mausoleum. This may not seem completely fair; after all, egotism and ambition often go hand-in-hand with being a national politician. By unashamedly campaigning for his seat, however, Burris simply annoyed Americans.

You see, Burris fits a mold that people just love to hate. He’s the office worker that kisses up every day to get a promotion. He’s the student that stays after every lecture to beg for a higher grade. He may have gotten his way without resorting to anything illegal (like trying buy the seat), but he sure seemed annoying doing it. We’ve been making fun of the teacher’s pet and the overambitious office drone all our lives, and Burris has exhibited these qualities throughout the confirmation process.

This only helps to accentuate one of the Senator’s less-than-admirable character traits: his self-confidence. Burris has a habit of referring to himself in the third person, and has called himself a “trailblazer” and a “visionary.” He certainly talks the talk, but most Illinois residents know him best for his three losing runs for governor and his unsuccessful bid for mayor of Chicago. After falling short in so many races, it’s no wonder Burris would rather cling to his appointment than compete in a special election.

The Senator’s lack of humility also comes with an apparent lack of self-awareness. Many Americans view Blagojevich’s alleged crimes as heinous, and the general consensus seems to be that the state’s government is almost comically dysfunctional. Burris, on the other hand, ignores Blagojevich and sticks with his own qualifications and the legality of his appointment. “I don’t look upon the governor’s problems as my problems. I look at the governor’s problems as his problems,” Burris told CNN. He went on to say that he has “no opinion on the governor’s problems.”

By failing to recognize that he is linked to the man who appointed him, Burris demonstrates an ignorance of this country’s politics and, quite honestly, a lack of common sense. Yes, Burris is a qualified candidate. Yes, his appointment was probably a legal one. It is understandable, however, that the public isn’t comfortable with a senator chosen by a governor who was arrested and has since been impeached. Burris has never seriously acknowledged this fact in his crusade for a Senate seat, and it’s made him look delusional and out of touch.

Sen. Burris could have done many things to alter his recent political trajectory. He could have refused Blagojevich’s appointment, opting instead to run in a special election or vie for an appointment from the Lieutenant Governor. He could have shown humility after being chosen instead of campaigning heavily and lashing out at those who didn’t want to grant him a seat. At the very least, he could have demonstrated a bit of awareness as to why people are so hesitant to seat him. Now, trailblazer or not, Burris’s reputation may be irreparably stained.

Barack Obama
At first glance, this would seem to be the most obvious answer: Obama ran a campaign that was extremely tight and generally gaffe-free. His donor network allowed him to vastly outspend McCain, and energized voters, especially among black voters and students (and black students), leading to a Democratic advantage at the polls. Given the political climate, however, it is unlikely that Obama’s uniqueness as a candidate was the main factor in this election. Had Hillary Clinton won the nomination in the Democratic primary, she would likely have been the frontrunner against McCain. Replace Obama with Clinton, or any generic Democrat, and the end result is presumably the same.

John McCain
Richard Nixon said, “The mark of the good loser is that he takes his anger out on himself and not his victorious opponent or on his teammates.” McCain acknowledged his mistakes in the classy concession speech he gave last week. There were certainly missteps, including the ill-fated campaign suspension, the continued focus on distractions like Bill Ayers instead of the ailing economy, and most notably, the selection of Sarah Palin (more on that later). McCain’s biggest flaw, though, may simply have been the R next to his name. There was a decline in Republican voter turnout that, coupled with the rise in Democratic turnout, helped to do him in. Developments outside of either of the candidates’ control made it so any Republican would have had a tough time winning this election.

Unease over the economy did not help McCain woo voters. Photo by Barack Obama on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons.

The economy
One of the most important outside factors was the economy. American voters tend to trust Obama more than McCain to deal with the country’s financial problems, so the current crisis was a definite factor in the election. The sharp economic drop in September was directly correlated with a rise in Obama’s poll numbers from then on. Historically, the growth (or lack thereof) of the economy has had a direct effect on whether or not the incumbent party keeps office in presidential elections. Basically, voters look for a change during hard economic times, and the incumbent party represents the status quo. Thus they turn to the opposition, in this case Obama and the Democrats. So who’s to blame for the state of the economy? Greedy corporations? Deregulation? Lizard people posing as world leaders? It will probably be a while before economists are able to come to a consensus, but whatever the cause, it undoubtedly helped Obama win.

Sarah Palin
After being the boost that McCain needed, Palin seemed to become the anchor that weighed the campaign down. She was mocked for her inexperience and interview performances, and a poll taken last weekend showed that her unfavorable ratings were twice as high as when McCain first picked her to be the vice presidential nominee. Recent reports from McCain aides say, among other things, that the Alaska Governor did not know that Africa was a continent. The blame can’t really be placed on Palin, however; to paraphrase Popeye, she is who she is. No one should have expected her to morph into Ronald Reagan with breasts simply by virtue of the office she was running for. It was McCain’s choice to make, and it’s pretty clear he made the wrong one. Imagine the possible changes in fortune had he picked a running mate with actual knowledge about the economy, like Mitt Romney. After all, the difference between a hockey mom and a qualified vice presidential candidate is way more than lipstick.

Political aides
These men and women serve directly under the candidate during the campaign. Unknown to all but the most devoted political junkies, these troopers basically run the campaign behind the scenes. Unfortunately, this anonymity means they are often the first to be thrown under the bus when things go wrong. For instance, one of Palin’s aides, Nicole Wallace, was blamed by the McCain campaign for not sufficiently preparing the Alaska Governor for her interview with Katie Couric. Republicans then placed Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe fiasco squarely on Wallace’s shoulders. Indeed, superiors have no qualms about writing off their political subordinates like this. In the days leading up to the election, things got rough. Aides and advisers from the McCain and Palin camps duked it out behind closed doors. While this strife certainly didn’t help, McCain was on a losing path before the infighting began. No matter how much public blame they get, a loss like this can’t just be blamed on inept aides.

George W. Bush
The former Texas governor and current Mary Poppins impersonator has been the face of the Republican party for the past eight years. With Bush’s approval rating hovering around 26 percent in the most recent polls, he’s not someone McCain wanted to be tied to. The Obama campaign’s broken record strategy of associating the Arizona senator with “four more years of Bush” seems to have succeeded. The Republicans’ plan from the beginning was to limit Bush’s appearances so as not to tie McCain down, but he has simply been too unpopular to not have an effect on the campaign. After handing him a primary loss in 2000, Bush may very well have defeated John McCain again.

Though fingers certainly will be pointed, it’s important to remember that there are many factors that led to the outcome of this election. Ultimately, the things McCain could have handled better (his campaign tactics, the vice presidential choice) were outweighed by factors outside his control (the flailing economy, Bush’s unpopularity). In his concession speech, he said he had no regrets about the way his campaign was run. There’s probably some truth to that. If there is anything to regret, it’s being in the right place at the wrong time.