The results aside, which obviously made it unique for everyone in the United States, this presidential election was very different for me than any of the other 14 I have lived through.  Here's why.

First, for the first time in my life I lived in a battleround state.  As a result, I saw far more commercials, got more political mail, was called by pollsters more often, saw more signs and posters put up during the day and taken down at night, and was (repeatedly) robocalled. It was exhilarating and infuriating at the same time.  Thank god for caller ID.

Second, I was a pundit for this election.  I traveled to 31 states, over 70 cities (some repeatedly), and gave over 500 presentations.  I wasn't traveling for a candidate; I was giving a nonpartisan view of what was happening, mostly to financial types.

The editorial page of my local paper defends my profession against the snide remarks of Senator Clinton.  We can use all the help we can get, but in the process, the paper misses why economists are so squarely against the gas tax holiday:

Speaking of sophistry, it's perhaps not surprising that Clinton would want to change the subject when challenged about her gas tax “holiday” instead of defending it on the merits. After all, suspending the tax for three months would save the average consumer a paltry $30, while doing absolutely nothing to curb demand for oil. It would also deprive the federal highway trust fund of roughly $9 billion for badly needed road and bridge maintenance and repair if Clinton's proposal to make up that amount through a new tax on oil company profits failed to become law.

I've been busy this past week with my day job as director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth.  The year 2008 marks two anniversaries for us: 100 years since Nelson Rockefeller was born and 25 years since the Center was founded at Dartmouth.  We are using the coincidence of the Centennial with the 2008 elections to examine Rockefeller's legacy in the three decades since he retired from public office.

I'm with Andrew on this one.  Obama emphatically and publicly stated he wouldn't run at Clinton's vice presidential candidate on March 10th, and I doubt Clinton would take a second seat either.  She'd prefer to stay in the Senate.

Stan, I understand the mountain of polling results showing that Democrats and Democratic leaders want the two to run together, but it would weaken the ticket.  Hillary Clinton's negatives are too high in those very same polls.  Obama is going to pick a V.P. that will maximize his appeal to key voting groups, like Hispanics, women, and workers.  Clinton would do the same.  She doesn't need any help with Blacks, and I'm not sure Obama's wildly supportive 18 to 30 year olds would be as enthusiastic with Clinton at the top of the ticket. They wouldn't switch to McCain, but they might not show up.  Clinton and Obama really are friends when the get offstage, but they're not going to get offstage for a long time.

I think we have our first CG&G gentlemen's bet. I agree with Stan that Clinton or Obama will run as VP if asked. That's why I think neither will be asked in a public enough way to force acceptance. I think there has already been too much animosity (which will only continue to grow). Beyond that, I don't think that the electoral advantages here are all that large.