The title says it all. In a NEWSWEEK exclusive, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former presidential contender John Edwards, and Todd Harris, a former McCain adviser, liveblog the Oct. 15 debate here. 

For my preview, click here.  

I'll be back later with some post-show analysis. In the meantime, the comments are all yours.
 

One of my favorite parts of hitting the campaign trail is chatting with cabdrivers, who always seem especially eager to discuss politics. (Listening to talk radio all day will do that to you.)

Take my cabbie this evening out on Long Island. A black man in his mid-40's who arrived in the U.S. from Jamaica in 1990, Steve was something of an enigma. As we motored from the Garden City station to the local Marriott, Steve immediately asked whether I was attending the debate. I told him I was a reporter for Newsweek. "Is that in the city?" he said, drawing a blank; I explained that it was "like Time." "Oh," he said. "You know, I've been following the politics, what's going on. It's my hobby."

As if to prove his point, Steve flipped from FM (Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'") to AM, where he settled on Michael Savage's "Savage Nation." (I was deeply saddened by the change.) "I listen to this guy, Savage, all the time," he said. "He gives me both sides of an issue." Considering that Savage, an arch-rightie, was blabbering at that point about how the "false conservative" (Bush) had selected the "old man" (McCain) as his "fall guy" so that "BO" ("Obama") would win the election and allow the "power structure" to "usher in worldwide socialism," I assumed that Steve was something of a conservative (or simply a conspiracist). When he mentioned that he agreed with "most of what Bill O'Reilly says," that simply sealed the deal.

But then I asked Steve who he was voting for. "Obama," he said proudly. Why, pray tell? "I seen poverty firsthand in Jamaica," he said. "The guy who wants to help the little guy is for me. That's my politics. What these CEOs making? $400 million? That's not right. It's not right." So that was Steve: a black Caribbean immigrant who agrees with Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage "most of the time" but is voting for Obama because of the economy. Like most of us, he doesn't fit any demographic mold.

November will be his first U.S. election.
 

I spent yesterday afternoon and evening at the annual meeting of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, at Rockefeller University, where the organizers were firm taskmasters: the scientists presenting studies had to focus not on esoterica but on translational research—that is, the kind that promises to help patients.

Two presentations stood out. Pete Coffey of University College London described the work he is doing as part of the London Project to Cure Blindness, which has made remarkable progress using human embryonic stem cells (donated by couples using IVF who had "extra" embryos they did not wish to implant) to treat the blindness caused by macular degeneration). You read it here first: in the magazine’s “global literacy” issue in July I argued that the first clinical use of stem cells would be to treat blindness. The work Coffey described makes that seem more and more likely: he and his team have improved the vision of several patients who had gone blind. One of them was even able to drive again.

But Coffey was quite circumspect: the surgery so far works on only 25 percent of patients. He and his team continue to refine the technique and define the patient populations that would most benefit from the surgery.

That good news stood in stark contrast to the talk by Jeffrey Kordower of Chicago’s Rush Presbyterian Medical Center, where he is a leading neurologist. His task was to describe progress on using stem cells to treat Parkinson’s disease, which on paper looks like an excellent candidate for the stem-cell approach. Scientists know what has gone wrong in PD. Neurons in the brain’s substantia nigra die or do not work; either way, they fail to produce dopamine, leading to the tremors and other symptoms of PD. Solution: replace them with neurons derived form stem cells, or with stem cells themselves that you coax to differentiate into the lost/damaged neurons.

I’ve blogged before on the growing realization that using stem cells, or cells derived from stem cells, to repair neurological diseases is going to be really, really hard. But I’d never heard someone of Kordower’s stature put it quite so starkly: “In my opinion it will take a major miracle for stem cells to make a difference in Parkinson’s disease,” he said.

In fairness, as he went on to say, the field of PD has already had two miracles: the discovery that the drug levo-dopa and the technique of deep-brain stimulation both dramatically reduce the movement symptoms of PD. But attempts in the 1990s to transplant fetal brain cells into PD patients produced awful side effects (uncontrolled movement, called dyskinesia), for no-one-knows-what reason. “No one should do clinical trials with stem cells [for PD] until we understand the cause of the dyskinesia,” Kordower warned. Another cautionary note: in earlier studies, the transplanted cells eventually show the same kind of awful changes that the patient’s own brain cells did, such as loss of dopamine transporter and development of Lewy bodies, a cause of dementia. In other words, whatever went wrong in the brain originally to produce Parkinson’s was still going wrong, ravaging the transplanted cells. Very bad news for Parkinson’s patients who have pinned their hopes on stem cells—and ironic given the prominent, courageous role Michael J. Fox and his foundation have played in drumming up public support for stem cell research.

Acorn + Mickey Mouse = The Most Adorable Political "Scandal" in Recent Memory.

It may also be one of the most pointless.

In recent days, conservative activists and right-leaning media outlets like FOX News and Matt Drudge--who led his influential site with the Mickey Mouse story yesterday afternoon--have tried to raise a ruckus over the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a liberal nonprofit/lobbying group--it typically fights on behalf of poor people for free school lunches and government housing--that also spearheaded one of this cycle's largest (and most controversial) voter registration drives. Unless I'm mistaken, the conspiracy theory goes something like this: Obama "has ties" to Acorn; Acorn is trying to steal the election; therefore, by the transitive property, Obama is also trying to steal the election. To see why this makes no sense, it'll be helpful to break the equation down into three bite-sized pieces.

I. Obama Has Ties to ACORN: This is true. As the New York Times recently reported, "in 1995, Obama was on a team of lawyers that represented Acorn in a lawsuit to compel Illinois to comply with federal laws intended to enhance access to the polls"; the Justice Department "was on the same side as ACORN in the lawsuit." Later, "Obama conducted two leadership training sessions of roughly an hour each for ACORN’s Chicago affiliate over a three-year period." Finally, the Obama campaign made (in February) a $832,598 payment to Citizens Services, Inc., a consulting firm affiliated with ACORN; Chicago initially reported that the money was for “staging, sound, lighting” before amending its FEC reports to reflect the fact that it was spent on get-out-the-vote efforts. About $80,000 of the $832,598 went to ACORN.

Of course, there's no proof here that Team Obama coordinated with ACORN on registering voters or anything. Still, if ACORN were committing voter fraud, that large February payment would certainly land the candidate in hot water--deservedly so. The key word, however, is "if." Which brings us to...

II. ACORN Is Trying to Steal the Election. This is not even remotely true. To date, there have been no shortage of charges against ACORN: Ohio in 2004; Colorado in 2005; Kansas City, Missouri in 2006 and Washington state in 2007. This year alone, authorities are investigating the organization's branches in Lake County, Indiana; Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Michigan; Nevada and Missouri. But not a single case alleges that ACORN is attempting to influence the outcome of the election. So why all the fuss? Because people are confusing voter fraud (a dangerous offense) with voter registration fraud (a petty crime). ACORN stands accused of the latter. The Politico's Ben Smith explains nicely:

The former would be, say, voting the cemeteries or stuffing the ballot boxes. This has happened occasionally in American history, though I can think of recent instances only in rare local races. Practically speaking, this can most easily be done by whoever is actually administering the election, which is why partisan observers carefully oversee the vote-counting process.

The latter is putting the names of fake voters on the rolls, something that happens primarily when organizations, like Acorn, pay contractors for new voter registrations. That can be a crime, and it messes up the voter files, but there's virtually no evidence these imaginary people then vote in November. The current stories about Acorn don't even allege a plan to affect the November vote.

I'll use Mickey Mouse to demonstrate how ACORN has engaged in voter registration fraud. In Florida, ACORN pays local workers $8 an hour to gather 20 voter registrations a day. One of these workers, seeking to meet his quota and snap up his paycheck, wrote down "Mickey Mouse," forged a signature and turned his form; others have submitted forms with made-up names, repeated names, "unreadable handwriting, missing information, signatures that didn't match those on file, altered dates of birth or Social Security numbers." Following protocol, ACORN has tried to find the incomplete, duplicate or bogus forms and fire the employees who submitted them. But before sending every application to the state--which is required by law--the group unfortunately failed to flag a few. 

This has undoubtedly made life more difficult for the local officials tasked with verifying applications, and ACORN should be held accountable. But it can't possibly change who's voting on Election Day. Mickey Mouse isn't going to show up at the polls. Voters can't vote if they don't exist. People who are registered twice will only be allowed to vote once. Annoying as they are, these inconsistencies can't affect the outcome of the election. They can only cause headaches.

For voter registration fraud to become voter fraud, ACORN would have to be engaged in a widespread, covert effort to flood the polls with ineligible voters impersonating their eligible peers. That would require a lot of organization. ACORN seems to have the opposite problem; it's seemingly too disorganized to filter some obviously fake registration forms from its files. Truth be told, actual voter fraud is extremely rare--and the group that registered lawbreaking voter is never responsible. As Art Levine reports, "only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting in federal elections between 2002 and 2005 -- and nobody was even charged by Justice with impersonating another voter. (The Justice Department declined to answer questions about more recent fraud prosecutions.) And despite the anti-immigrant frenzy fueling photo-ID laws, only 14 noncitizens were convicted of illegally voting in federal elections from 2002 through 2005 -- mostly because of their ignorance of election law."

III. Obama is Trying to Steal the Election: Back to the transitive property. If Obama has ties to ACORN but ACORN ISN'T trying to steal the election, how could Obama possibly be cheating? If Obama wins on Nov. 4, expect his opponents to claim that he climbed to victory on a mountain of fraudulent votes. But don't believe them--unless you believe that Mickey Mouse actually exists. And votes. Without anybody stopping him.

Three signs of confidence from the Obama camp:

I. Ad Wars: While outspending McCain three-to-one on television advertisements between Oct. 7 and Oct. 13, Obama dramatically increased his disbursements in a wide swath of red states as well--"evidence," as the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza writes, "that he is almost entirely on offense with just three weeks left before election day." Here's Chris:

In Florida, for example, Obama is now spending just shy of $5 million a week on television -- a $1.8 million (!) increase from just a week ago. The same pattern is apparent in Indiana (a $900,000 increase in ad spending over the past week), Missouri ($1.4 million increase) and Virginia ($2.3 million increase).

Lest we forget, McCain upped his spending, too. The problem? "The majority of his increased spending [was] in states Republicans carried with ease in recent presidential election." These include North Carolina (a state Bush won with 56 percent of the vote in 2004 and where McCain has recently added more than $700,000 to his buy) and Missouri (Bush 53 percent, $600,000). Having just pulled out of Wisconsin, the RNC is currently advertising mostly in Missouri, Colorado, Indiana and Virginia--again, all red states.

In other words, Obama's cash advantage has forced McCain to play defense instead of offense. With Obama leading by more than seven points in the Bush states of New Mexico (+7.0), Virginia (+8.6) and Iowa (+11.8)--he's also ahead in Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina--it's hard to see how McCain can put together a winning map if he's not even trying to encroach on his rival's turf. The only state where McCain is outspending Obama: Maine.

II. Redeployments: As Marc Ambinder reports, Obama is redeploying field staffers from a blue state (Michigan) to a pair of red states (Indiana and North Carolina). Again, if Obama adds Iowa, New Mexico and Virginia to Kerry's 2004 map, it's over. He's won--with or without the Hoosier and Tar Heel States. This latest move indicates that Obama is less worried about defending his terrain--which is understandable, given that McCain has withdrawn from Michigan and now trails by 10.5 percent in the polls--than in pursuing every available path to the largest possible victory.

III. Letting Biden Say Whatever the Heck He Wants: Do you think Joe Biden would inform Ohioans that he'd once been arrested for infiltrating a girl's dormitory if Team Obama was on tenterhooks? Um, no. Here he is in Athens this afternoon: 

It’s good to be back in Athens. Now you say ‘Back in Athens, Biden, when were you here?’ Well I went to the University of Delaware and we came out here to play Ohio University. Now that was 228 years ago and we did just fine, but the thing I loved about the university was that it was such a beautiful town and we all hung around out afterwards.”

Now I made a little mistake here that day, I made a little mistake. I wandered in, I met this lovely group of Ohio University…students... And uh, without knowing it, I shouldn’t admit this on national television because it’ll reveal that I’m over 60, but I thought that we were gonna go get something to eat... So I just said to young, two young women I had met, said well why don’t you…we’ll be right back, I said well I’ll come with you, and they said OK, and I walked into their dormitory and was immediately accosted by a cop who arrested me because back in those days men were not allowed in women’s dormitories.

Not that anyone can control Biden's mouth. But still. 

Recently Newsweek's Duncan Hewitt spoke to Nicholas Lardy, a leading commentator on the Chinese economy at the Peterson Institution for International Economics in Washington D.C., about the global financial crisis and its implications for China.As export growth slows, China faces renewed pressure to boost domestic consumption, and stimulate its service sector.  Several prominent Chinese economists at a recent conference organized by the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences emphasized that China had relied too heavily on manufacturing in recent years.   Lardy went further by explaining how the export boom of the past few years, and the resulting over-investment in manufacturing, had had a significant negative impact on the service sector. He said low interest rates and an undervalued currency were two of the main culprits. Excerpts:

Hewitt: How serious is the imbalance between manufacturing and services in China, in your view?

Lardy: There’s increasing evidence that China’s whole growth pattern has been distorted over the past five years: the share of investment going into manufacturing has doubled – and that’s just official data. There are several complementary reasons for this: one is recovery from the last slowdown in late 90s, when the share of narrow manufacturing declined to just 15 per cent which is really low – now it’s up to 30%. Also the undervalued exchange rate has increased the profitability of tradable goods.  More recently there’s also been the under-pricing of energy, which is significant.   We’ve also had an under-pricing of capital: if you can get a bank loan, the cost of capital is zero in the current environment - and that obviously favors capital intensive things over less capital intensive things, so it helps manufacturing.  For service industry the availability of cheap capital is not so important, but if you’re adding ten million tons to your steel capacity it’s very important.

This, apparently, is it.

After eighteen months and 40 (!!!) face-offs, the 2008 presidential debate season comes to a close tonight with the third and final showdown between Messrs. McCain and Obama at Hofstra University in Hempsted, N.Y. This is good news for the Democrat. Ahead in the polls by an average of 7.7 percentage points--by far his largest lead since, well, ever--Obama's only job this evening is not messing up; no more debates, no more mistakes (or at least far fewer people paying attention). McCain, on the other hand, has a much harder mission: catching up. Tonight, 70 million American will be watching; the next time either candidate will command an audience that large will be on Jan. 20, 2009. So when the pundits--and, frankly, Team Obama--say that this is the Arizonan's "last best chance" to "change the game," they're not, for once, exaggerating.

The big question is how he'll try to do it. Or, phrased more accurately, who will try to do it. Over the past few days, two McCains have emerged on the campaign trail. The first says he relishes his "underdog" status, pledges to "fight for [his country]" and refuses to impugn Obama personally (policies are fair game). The second is still airing negative ads 100 percent of the time--including a spot that hammers on the Ayers-Obama connection--and promising to bring up the unrepentant radical on stage in New York. "I['ll] I whip his you-know-what," McCain vowed Sunday.

It's easy to see why McCain No. 2 would be tempted to show up tonight and, as NBC's Chuck Todd puts it, attempt to “disqualify Barack Obama.” The truth is, McCain can't win unless Obama is "disqualified." The Democrat currently averages 50 percent of the vote, with 12 of the last 17 national polls showing him at or above that mark. Which means that McCain could capture every remaining undecided voter and still lose the election (were it held today). To come out of top, the Republican needs to convince people who are already supporting Obama to jump ship. Hence "disqualification."

The problem is that McCain has spent the last dozen days monomaniacally attempting to disqualify his rival, throwing Ayers, ACORN and "infanticide" against the wall in the hope that something would stick. Unfortunately, McCain is worse off now than he was when he first launched these attacks. The proof is in the pudding. At the start of October, Obama was beating McCain 48.9 percent to 43.6 percent, according to the RealClear Politics national polling average; since then, Obama's average support has increased 1.1 points to 50 percent while McCain's has slipped the same amount to 42.4 percent. Obama currently holds double-digit advantages in eight national surveys.

A look at the two candidates' favorability ratings explains why. On Sept. 24, 53.8 percent of voters saw Obama favorably and 36.8 percent saw him unfavorably--a net positive rating of 17 points. On that day, McCain's favorable, unfavorable and net-positive numbers were identical to Obama's: 53.8, 36.7 and 17.1. Not anymore. While Obama's net-positive rating has grown to 21.5 points over the past three weeks (57.4 to 35.9), McCain's has plummeted to 7.8. At this point, only the barest majority--50.1 percent, a four-point loss since Sept. 24--see McCain positively. Even worse, McCain's negatives have ballooned by nearly six points over the same period. Legendary GOP strategist Lee Atwater once said that "if you could push an office-seeker's negative number above 40 percent, there would be no way that office-seeker could win his race." McCain's current number? 42.3 percent. 

If McCain wants to come out swinging tonight, fine. Aggression will certainly satiate the die-hard Republicans who've started waving "Take Off [the] Kid Gloves or You'll Lose" signs at his rallies. But as the past two weeks have shown, the voters who matter--late-breakers, undecideds, soft Obamans--have only become less inclined to support McCain as he's turned up the heat. Nate Silver is right to characterize this as a feedback loop of sorts: "the worse McCain's poll numbers become, the more desperate his campaign looks, and the more desperate his campaign looks, the worse his poll numbers become." Negative messaging doesn't work when voters see the messenger in a negative light--especially as Election Day approaches and the economy crumbles around us.

That's why tonight is a "Mission Impossible" situation for McCain. His best bet, I think, is to angle for a memorable moment that reminds viewers of why they once liked him (and not why they shouldn't like Obama). He can't afford to "win on points" or (God forbid) "tie." McCain's "moment" needs to overwhelm tonight's other 90 minutes. It needs to be ripe for endless recycling on cable news and YouTube. And it needs to be the only thing we remember tomorrow. He could refuse to answer the inevitable question about Ayers, admitting that he reluctantly indulged in such attacks but has now realized that the American people want something more from him. He could announce a bipartisan cabinet. He could fire his staff, take down his ads and declare that he'll be providing the press with unlimited access from now on--as conservative columnist William Kristol suggested on Monday.

Honestly, I don't know. Each of these moments would expose McCain to the usual attack from Team Obama--that he's "erratic"--so I'll leave the strategizing to Steve Schmidt. But the fact is, McCain is no longer in any position (poll-wise) to "disqualify" his rival; from here on out, he'll have to hope that events--a national-security situation, a major gaffe, a dead girl, a live boy--do the job for him. In the meantime, McCain's goal should be "requalifying" himself for the presidency among the dwindling number of voters who say they're supporting Obama but aren't completely sold. The rest is up to fate.

That mission, at least, is still possible. We'll see if he chooses to accept it. 

By Tony Dokoupil

It's odd that no one has paid much attention to the neckwear sported by presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. True, there are more significant items to focus on before Nov. 4. But presidential style is no trivial thing. It's a matter of elaborate care and subtle signaling, with each commander in chief wielding their closet, consciously and unconsciously, as an advertisement for themselves...

So what does the knot say about today's presidential candidates? In McCain's case, it screams old-guard Washington establishment, like a bolo screams cowboy. According to his top adviser, Mark Salter, the Arizona senator wears his tie with either a Windsor or the related half-Windsor knot--a configuration long favored by Beltway elites and, at least judging by the photos, nearly every U.S. president in the 20th century. Perfectly tied, the Windsor is a balanced equilateral triangle with a neat dimple and trim finish... McCain's Windsor might seem like an odd choice for a self-proclaimed maverick, but it reflects the senator's public struggle to remain true to himself despite the distorting pressure of the presidential campaign. He does give his Windsor a maverick tweak, choking the normally large and lush knot until it looks small and hard.

Obama, on the other hand, still hounded by charges of elitism, takes a less formal, more middle-class tack. Based on an unscientific sampling of recent photos--including the Men's Vogue cover--he most often wears his necktie with a four-in-hand knot, an awkward and asymmetrical cinch invented by 19th-century carriage drivers (who held four reigns in hand) and popularized by Dilbert-types looking for a no-hassle way to spruce up for work. "It's a knot for someone who has 30 seconds for his tie in the morning," says Blackman, "a knot for the masses." The Obama campaign didn't respond to NEWSWEEK's inquiry about his ties (the nerve!), and the use of varying fabrics--which hold folds differently--make it tough to be certain about the senator's knot. But this much is at least clear: the Obama knot marks a definite break from the geometric Windsors of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush...

In an era of such sartorial plenty, why does Obama opt for the pedestrian four-in-hand? We offer five highly speculative theories.

READ THE REST HERE.

A round-up of this morning's must-read stories.

OBAMA, MCCAIN SEEK LEADER'S IMAGE IN FINAL DEBATE
(Liz Sidoti, Associated Press)
Barack Obama and John McCainwill both pursue the image of a strong leader in troublesome economic times as they meet Wednesday night for their third and final presidential debate. Their face-off comes as Obama widens his lead in typically Democratic states and campaigns with an air of optimism about his prospects, while McCain seeks a way to gain ground and finds himself defending traditionally Republican states with less than three weeks left in the race... Wednesday's debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., is slated to focus entirely on the economy and domestic policy. The candidates will be seated at a table with moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS. Both presidential contenders have used the previous debates to make and remake their main campaign points, frequently sidestepping direct questions such as how they would have to scale back their long lists of campaign promises in light of the economic crisis. Advisers for each candidate say he will use the final debate to lay out his vision for the country and promote his economic policies while drawing differences with his opponent. Character attacks — subtle or not — also could occur.

WHICH JOHN MCCAIN WILL SHOW UP TO DEBATE?
(Mike Madden, Salon)
A day before the final presidential debate of the year -- and three weeks before Election Day -- McCain's campaign still seems to be struggling to figure out how to regain momentum in a race that, for him, has gone south faster than a retiree with a ticket to Florida. (That is, if the retiree still has any savings left to head south with.) McCain himself is sticking to a kindler, gentler stump speech that only impugns Obama's policies, not his personality, and his rallies are more carefully controlled by the campaign -- at least in part because polling found voters were starting to turn away from McCain, rather than Obama, because of McCain's sharp tone. But aides haven't given up on the notion that voters would revolt against the Democrat if they only knew whom he's been hanging out with... Nearly all of McCain's TV ads are attacking Obama in similar fashion. And a day after McCain debuted his retooled stump speech, and only a few days after he rebuked his own supporters for taking anti-Obama vitriol past where McCain wanted it to be, he also promised the old McCain -- last week's McCain -- would make an appearance at Wednesday night's debate, with an attempt to highlight Ayers. 

MCCAIN'S BROTHER BLASTS CAMPAIGN STRATEGY
(Paul West, Baltimore Sun)
Frustrations inside John McCain's camp boiled over on the eve of Wednesday night's presidential debate as the candidate's brother unleashed an e-mail blasting the campaign's "counter-productive" strategy. "Let John McCain be John McCain," wrote Joe McCain in a missive sent out shortly before midnight Monday. "Make ads that show John not as crank and curmudgeon but as a great leader for his time." McCain's younger brother was sharply critical of unnamed top campaign officials who "so tightly 'control the message'" that they are preventing reporters from speaking with those, like himself, who know the candidate best. His complaint echoed those of other McCain intimates who have chafed for months at orders not to speak with the news media without advance permission from the campaign. The younger McCain called this news management strategy "counter-intuitive, counter-experiential, and counter-productive" because it conflicts with his brother's reputation for openness. The clampdown "has gradually bled away all the good will that this great man had from the press," he wrote. 

FROM 2 RIVALS, 2 PRESCRIPTIONS
(Jackie Calmes, New York Times)
Both presidential candidates have now outlined their plans for addressing the economic crisis, leaving voters with a clear choice when it comes to one of the biggest challenges the next president will face. Mr. McCain’s new plans include tax cuts on capital gains and on withdrawals from retirement accounts by people 59 and older, bigger write-offs for stock losses and a tax waiver for unemployment benefits.Those proposals, which would be effective for two years, complement an overall economic program that hews to the Republican playbook: tax cuts geared especially to individuals and businesses at the top of the income scale, in the belief that they will stimulate the economy and create jobs that benefit everyone... The $60 billion stimulus package that Senator Barack Obama announced Monday, combined with his longstanding economic agenda, reflect Democratic emphasis on tax cuts intended for middle-class and low-wage workers and for the smallest businesses, as well as spending increases for public works to create jobs... Even with the new proposals, which come on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars the government has already committed to bail out financial institutions and other faltering corporations, both candidates continue to promise that as president they would reduce the ballooning annual budget deficits, without forfeiting any of the big-ticket promises they made pre-crisis.

Via Flickr, one for Barack Obama...

... and via Jmart, the two sides of John McCain--or at least his crowds:

The second sign reads "You Had Me At Hero." The first... well, that one speaks for itself.

Breaking news! John McCain is about to make a comeback. Unless, of course, he isn't.

Nearly 20 days have passed since a national poll showed McCain leading Barack Obama. That's good news for the Illinois senator--but it's bad news for the nation's political press corps. Despite the constant complaints of critics on the right--and left--the media isn't systematically inclined to favor liberals or conservatives. It is, however, addicted to drama. That's understandable: the news is what's new. So after three weeks of writing the same basic story--Barack Obama is Doing Really, Really Well!--the journalistic junkies of New York and Washington have begun to scramble for a new narrative fix. And it's no surprise that they've settled on the "comeback" storyline--a natural fit, really, with McCain's long history of Lazarus-like behavior--as object of their obsession.

Consider the evidence. When McCain unveiled a kinder, gentler stump speech yesterday in Virginia Beach--Bill Ayers was out, "scrappy underdog" messaging was in--both Politico's Mike Allen and Time's Mark Halperin decided to frame it as a potential "comeback" moment. Never mind that McCain had said the same stuff at last month's Republican National Convention. Over at the Drudge Report, Matt Drudge has spent the past week treating statistically insignificant one- or two-point gains for McCain in the Rasmussen and Zogby tracking polls as "BREAKING" news; on Sunday, he led his influential site with the headline "READY FOR A COMEBACK." Finally, the New York Times' Adam Nagourney suggested yesterday that "news media's desire for a competitive race and tendency to find the 'underdog is surging' story line irresistible" could still shift momentum back to McCain." That sound you hear is the political press corps chomping at its collective bit.

Now, being a reporter, I'm all for a new narrative. But this is kind of ridiculous. The fact is, there's no data at this point to substantiate a McCain surge--and without tangible, quantifiable proof, the "news media's desire for a competitive race" shouldn't mean squat. Sure, the occasional survey has shown McCain as close as two or three points. But the average national polling gap between Obama and McCain has grown steadily from 2.3 percent on Sept. 23 to 7.3 percent today, and the Illinois senator's estimated lead in the Electoral College has expanded from eight votes to 190 votes over the same period of time. If the election were held today, Obama would win 313 electoral votes from states where he's ahead by an average of five points or more; he'd take an additional 61 from states where he's ahead by less. Any chatter about a McCain comeback should follow--not precede--a sustained reversal of these trends. That's why they call it reporting.

Am I saying that McCain can't battle back? Not at all. But before I report that he has, I'll be watching the numbers--not the news--for signs of momentum.

Here's how I imagine any McCain surge would unfold. First and foremost are the undecideds. Right now, they represent about five percent of the electorate (on average). As the election approaches, they'll begin to break for either Obama or McCain. Historically, undecideds tend to split pretty evenly between the two candidates. But thanks to Obama's unprecedented political profile--and McCain's effort to raise doubts about his character and readiness--an unusually high number of undecideds may revert at the last minute to the more familiar candidate. That would give McCain a boost of about three or four points.

At this point, Obama--who's topped 50 percent in 10 of the last 14 polls--would still lead McCain by at least three percent nationally. The next bloc to watch is older white voters--the demographic group that has "moved most recently into Obama's corner and given the Democrat his big lead." Drawn to Obama for economic reasons, they've always been wary of his inexperience--and could still be lured from his corner. If McCain pries a sizable number of white seniors away from Obama--today's "Pension and Family Security Plan" is designed to help--the frontrunner would presumably dip below 50 percent in the national polls, putting McCain back in play.

From here, I'd turn my attention to the battleground states that voted for Bush in 2004. Given that graybeards represent a key voting bloc in several of these states--which, after all, will decide the election-- I'll be looking to see whether McCain is able to erase his three-to-12-point deficits in Florida (5.0), Ohio (3.4), Colorado (5.2), New Mexico (7.3), Iowa (12.8) and Virginia (6.5). If he can do that--and perhaps pick up some steam in the Kerry states of Wisconsin, New Hampshire and/or Pennsylvania, where he now trails by more than 10 points--we may be heading for a long night on Nov. 4.

Until then, however, I'll leave the comeback chatter to the chattering classes.

As an unabashed fan of "Gossip Girl"--it's no "The O.C.," but then again, what is?--I feel strangely compelled to post the latest ad from liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org. Called "Talk to Your Parents," it features Dan Humphrey and Serena Van Der Woodsen--also known, I'm told, as Penn Badgely and Blake Lively--encouraging kids to steer the 'rents toward Barack Obama. Judging by the small-scale buy--national airtime during "Gossip Girl" followed by screeningson MTV and Comedy Central in North Carolina and Nevada--the point is to get Blair-aholic political bloggers like yours truly to post the spot online. I hate playing to type, but...

Truth be told, I'm digging the satirical anti-drug PSA vibe of the spot. "Mom, Dad, I found this in your room," says "Lonely Boy" as he holds up a "Drill Baby Drill" trucker cap. "And if you're ever out somewhere and you're considering voting for John McCain, just call me!" adds Serena. "I'll pick you up, no questions asked." But I sort of wish MoveOn took it a few steps further. Why not compare your brain (an egg) to your brain on McCain (a plate of scrambled--I mean, "erratic"--eggs)? Or, you know, show a teenager busting into his dad's room and confronting him with a bag of "Country First" buttons. "This yours?" he could say, cutting his father off before he can respond. "Who taught you how to do this stuff?" And, then, exploding with years of pent-up despair, the older man would shout, "You, all right! I learned it by watching you!"

I'm not sure that this ad would make any sense whatsoever. But I am sure that it would be totally awesome.

XOXO, Stumper

Grand Ayatollah Sayed Ali Husseini Sistani has had some ups and downs lately but he's still the most influential person in Iraq. The latest reminder came today when he signaled–signaling is about as explicit as he gets on these kinds of issues–that he would not oppose the status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States.

Sistani is, based on his years of scholarship and selection by other clerics, the highest ranking Shiite in Iraq and possibly the world. Though he stays away from daily politics, especially compared to his counterpart clerics in Iran, he changed the course of the American occupation of Iraq by advocating for elections in 2005 and his consistent calls for patience have kept the country's Shiite majority from turning against the United States presence.

But with the rise of violent militias led by radical young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his own occasional long periods of public silence, it had seemed the Sistani's clout among the Shiite faithful had crested. A few months ago, rumors circulated that the reclusive cleric, who's about 78 years old, was in a coma. He responded by inviting local reporters to his compound, in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, to show them he was well. He also suffered the indignity last month of having his organization's Website hacked and defaced with anti-Shiite diatribes.

But Iraqi leaders still cannot make a major decision without getting Sistani's nod and implied support. Friday Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki went to Sistani's compound and talked to the cleric for about two and half hours about the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq. U.S. officials planned for a deal by July 31 but the haggling continues. Most of the terms are already on paper pending final points of contention, especially concerning who will prosecute U.S. soldiers accused of crimes and they seem to be good enough for the Ayatollah. Maliki told reporters after the meeting that Sistani had agreed to back whatever his government and the parliament adopt. The Shiite Prime Minister also noted that the current proposal sets a December, 2011 deadline for a troop withdrawal, something Sistani is believed to seek.

Today Sistani's office confirmed his stance in the usual way – authorizing an aide to issue a statement to reporters. It gave the Iraqi leadership the green light. "His Eminence accepts what they accept," said the statement. Typically, in saying little he said a lot.

–With Hassan Al-Jarrah reporting in Najaf.

The animals that humans share the planet with are and have been reservoirs for all sorts of nasty diseases (deer ticks and Lyme disease; mosquitoes and malaria; Ebola and lord-knows-what wildlife reservoir), but here’s one case where the beasts were accused unjustly. It had long been thought that humans contracted tuberculosis, which currently infects an estimated 2 billion of us, from cattle. But in a clever new study, scientists conclude that humans got it first, and only later did the pathogen Mycobacterium tuberculosis mutate and jump into cows.

Scientists led by Helen Donoghue of University College London and Mark Spigelman of UCL and Hebrew University in Jerusalem (a surgeon-turned-archaeologist who has done fascinating work tracing the prehistoric origins of disease, such as hepatitis B in mummies have discovered what they say are the earliest known cases of human tuberculosis in human bones. Found in the ruins of the village called Alit-Yam, a 9,000 year-old Neolithic settlement that has been submerged off the coast of Haifa for millennia, the bones appear to be of a mother and baby and have lesions characteristic of TB; the disease likely killed them.

A submerged settlement is a jackpot for archaeologists because of the excellent preservation: Atlit-Yam was in a marshland, and the graves were encased in clay. As the sea rose they were “eventually covered by thick layer of sand and later by salt water,” the scientists write, “thus providing anaerobic conditions that retard degradation” and caused “excellent preservation of the skeletal remains”--and of ancient DNA.

Analysis of those remains revealed DNA and other fragments of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, showing that the human disease is at least 9,000 years old—3,000 years older than previously thought. “This is the earliest report of [TB] in humans that has been confirmed by molecular means,” the scientists write. And here’s where the cows get acquitted: examination of the ancient DNA confirms that bovine TB evolved later than human TB.

“What is fascinating is that the infecting organism is definitely the human strain of tuberculosis, in contrast to the original theory that human TB evolved from bovine TB after animal domestication,” Donoghue said. “This gives us the best evidence yet that in a community with domesticated animals but before dairying, the infecting strain was actually the human pathogen.”

(Video via Jmart)

Judging by the polls, Sarah Palin may not propel John McCain to the presidency. But at least she'll make the path to Election Day a little more melodious.

At Palin's rally yesterday in Richmond, Va., the loudest applause was reserved not for the Mooseburger Queen of Wasilla but for her special guest, Hank Williams, Jr., who performed a new, pro-McCain rendition of his late-1970s hit "Family Tradition." "The left-wing liberal media have always been a real close knit family," he sang, somewhat redundantly. "But most of the American people don't believe 'em anyway, you see." Later verses blamed Democrats for "bankrupt[ing] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"; accused Bill Clinton of forcing "bankers" who "didn't want to make all those bad loans" of doing just that; and praised Palin for "protecting your family's condition" like a "mama bear in Idaho" protecting her "cubs." History? Hardly. Poetry? Not quite (sadly, the lilting, lonesome line "I have loved some ladies/and I have loved Jim Beam" was inexplicably AWOL). But certainly entertaining--even if Stumper greatly prefers Hanks I and III to Bocephus. 

But it's not so much the content of Williams' cantata--called "A McCain-Palin Tradition"--that's newsworthy. It's that he was performing at all. As regular Stumper readers know, McCain's presidential bid has seemed at times like fruitless quest to find a single rock star willing to associate his or her songs with the cause. Earlier this year, ABBA nixed McCain's attempt to use "Take a Chance on Me" (a personal favorite) at his rallies. "We played it a couple times and it's my understanding they went berserk," the candidate confessed. John Hall, formerly of the 1970s band Orleans and now a Democrat­ic congressman from New York, wouldn't let McCain use “Still the One." When hardline Dem John Mellencamp learned that McCain was blasting "Pink Houses" before events, he requested that the Republican cease and desist. Shortly thereafter, McCain settled on "Johnny B. Goode" as his signature song. "It might be because it is the only one [the artist] hasn't complained about us using," he said at the time. But Chuck Berry quickly came out for Obama.

Since then, the Foo Fighters, Heart, Van Halen, Jackson Browne and Frankie Valli have all prohibited McCain from playing their songs. Even the reliably Republican Ted Nugent is no fan. "McCain seem[s] to be catering to a growing segment of soulless Americans who could care less what they can do for their country, but whine louder and louder about what their country must do for them," says the Motor City Madman, who has the same criticism for Obama. "That is both un-American and pathetic."

The problem for McCain wasn't just that he kept forgetting to license these tracks. It's that he kept selecting songs by liberal Democrats--and he never seemed to have any Republican rockers to fall back on. In 2000 and 2004, the twangy, evangelical George W. Bush boasted his fair share of backing bands--nearly all of them either Christian (Third Day, Michael W. Smith), country (Travis Tritt, Larry Gatlin, Billy Ray Cyrus) or ultra-conservative (Nugent). A relative moderate, McCain wasn't particularly comfortable with any of those constituencies--and more importantly, they weren't particularly comfortable with him. Enter Sarah Palin. You'll notice Williams appeared at an event for the Alaska governor--not her boss. And judging by the lyrics--"Not gonna blink"; "Sarah fixed Alaska's broken condition"; the whole Mama Bear metaphor--it seems safe to say that she was his primary muse.

If I were McCain, I'd take advantage of this opportunity while it lasts. Get Palin on the horn with Martina McBride, Kid Rock, Lyle Lovett, Loretta Lynn, Britney Spears, whomever. Ask them to collaborate with Daddy Yankee and Big & Rich on a somber YouTube clip in which celebrities repeat McCain's words over video of a recent speech--say, his address at the Republican National Convention. "On an October morning, in the Gulf of Tonkin, I prepared for my 23rd mission over North Vietnam," Adam Sandler could intone. "I hadn’t any worry I wouldn’t come back safe and sound." Call it "Country First."

Something tells me the kids will flip.

MCCAIN IS LOOKING FOR ANOTHER COMEBACK
(Mark Z. Barabak and Maeve Reston, Los Angeles Times)
John McCain unveiled a feisty new campaign speech Monday, but the talk of change and promise of a fist-shaking fight to November failed to allay Republican concerns that the presidential race may be slipping beyond his grasp. With 21 days to the election, there was widespread agreement that Wednesday night's third and final presidential debate would be a crucial opportunity -- and perhaps the last one -- for the Arizona senator to change the course of a race that appears to be moving strongly in Democrat Barack Obama's direction. But the consensus ended there. For just about every Republican urging McCain to focus relentlessly on the economy, there was another who said McCain should continue questioning Obama's character by citing his association with William Ayers, a Vietnam-era radical. Some said the GOP nominee needed to do both, and also bring up the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama's controversial former pastor; others called that a mistake and said that a mix of messages was part of McCain's problem. 

BIG GOVERNMENT AHEAD
(David Brooks, New York Times)
By the time the recession is in full force, Democrats will probably be running the government. Barack Obama will probably be in the White House. Democrats will have a comfortable majority in the House and will control between 56 and 60 seats in the Senate... The new situation will reopen old rifts in the Democratic Party. One the one side, liberals will argue (are already arguing) that it was deregulation and trickle-down economic policies that led us to this crisis. Fears of fiscal insolvency are overblown. Democrats should use their control of government and the economic crisis as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make some overdue changes. Liberals will make a full-bore push for European-style economic policies. On the other hand, the remaining moderates will argue that it was excess and debt that created this economic crisis. ... Obama will try to straddle the two camps--he seems to sympathize with both sides--but the liberals will win... Even if he's so inclined, it's difficult for a president to overrule the committee chairmen of his own party... What we're going to see, in short, is the Gingrich revolution in reverse and on steroids. There will be a big increase in spending and deficits. In normal times, moderates could have restrained the zeal on the left. In an economic crisis, not a chance. The over-reach is coming. The backlash is next.

QUESTIONING OBAMA
(Dan Balz, Washington Post)
The presidential race is not over, but at this point, Obama has a better chance of becoming president than McCain, and as a result, the questions ought to be going toward him as much or more than McCain -- questions not of tactics but of substance. Obama has dealt deftly with the economic crisis -- at least in a political sense. But it's not clear that he has had any better ideas -- or put them forward more aggressively -- than Paulson and Bernanke when it comes to dealing with the crisis in the credit markets. It's not clear that he has pushed ideas that would have dealt with the crisis more effectively. At every turn, he has voiced support for the general course the administration has outlined, but he's not been far out ahead. Nor is it evident that he has dealt realistically with the impact the economic crisis may have on the next president. He has not backed away from ambitious plans for a second stimulus package, for dramatically expanding health care, for reducing dependence on foreign oil or for other spending plans that long have been part of his campaign agenda.

IT AIN'T OVER 'TIL IT'S OVER
(Adam Nagourney, New York Times)
Some things to keep in mind: 1 — There have been huge surges in voter registration reported in key states like Florida and Colorado, by all accounts reflecting the intense interest in Mr. Obama, his campaign’s aggressive effort to sign up new voters, particularly younger and black voters, and the declining fortunes of the Republican Party. That is the one big reason Mr. Obama’s senior advisers are feeling so bullish these days. Still, it is one thing to register to vote; which can often be accomplished by filling out and signing a form provided to you on the street or at your doorstep. It’s quite another to get them to come out and vote.  2 — The Obama campaign has invested millions of dollars and thousands of volunteers into developing highly sophisticated operations to identify supporters and get them to the polls... Still, there is one important difference: These are to a considerable extent new operations. The Republican turnout operations got better with each cycle because party leaders figured out what worked and what did not... 3 — Campaigns have rhythms, and inevitably swing back and forth for all kinds of reasons, including mistakes by candidates (think Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants) and the news media’s desire for a competitive race and tendency to find the “underdog is surging” story line irresistible.

MCCAIN, OBAMA PROMOTING POPULIST APPEALS ON RESCUE
(Matthew Benjamin, Bloomberg News)
Barack Obama and John McCain, both laying claim to the populist ground, have different approaches to implementing the financial markets rescue plan. The Democrat is focused on recapitalizing banks while halting foreclosures and creating new jobs, while the Republican wants to purchase and refinance mortgages of troubled homeowners. Obama promoted a package yesterday aimed at the middle- class, including temporary tax breaks on retirement savings, and federal loans for small businesses. McCain's campaign today said the Arizona senator will propose reducing taxes on long-term capital gains to 7.5 percent in 2009 and 2010, and expand on his plan to devote $300 billion to cutting mortgage payments for over-extended homeowners.

CONTINUED AFTER THE JUMP...
 

 When you cover a presidential campaign, you never know where you will find a useful data point. I just found one in a series of email exchanges with my best friends from high school days in my hometown of Pittsburgh.

This will take some explaining—be patient—but here is the bottom line. We took a vote of our old club (plus a few wives, girlfriends and prom dates who frequent our email list) and, by a stunning 9-1 margin the group voted in favor of Sen. Barack Obama.  (I and the other professional journalist in our group abstained.)

Here is why that the results are worth noting: I think they signal that non-Orthodox Jews, a crucial constituency in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, are going to vote big time for Obama—far more enthusiastically than published polls suggest.

A recent national survey sponsored by the American Jewish Committee found that 57 percent of Jewish voters supported Obama, compared with 30 percent for Sen. John McCain, with 13 percent undecided. (The Orthodox, a small but fervent minority of a minority in the United States, overwhelmingly support McCain).

If that 57 percent figure holds, Obama will do 12 percentage points worse among Jews than Sen. John Kerry did in 2004. Among the non-Orthodox (approximately 90 percent of the four million Jewish Americans), the survey found little difference based on age.

I think the numbers are low. If my friends are any indication, and I think they are, Baby Boomer Jews will turn out in droves for the Democratic nominee. And if they do, their children will, too.

The question is why.

That requires knowing a little more about my old friends. We were a tight-knit lot, devoted members of a social and athletic club with a comically grandiose French name, the Marquis. (I don’t think we had heard of Lafayette, let alone de Sade.) We were students at Taylor Allderdice High in the predominantly Jewish neighborhood of Squirrel Hill. There were a couple of fairly rich kids among us, and a couple whose families labored in the lower middle of the middle class. But no one struggled, and no one put on airs.

We went through junior and senior high from 1960-1966—before the earth caught fire in our college years. At Allderdice, few of us smoked; few of us drank. In our personal lives there were no divorces (that I can remember). Families were as solid as the soot-blackened stones that held up the Allegheny River bridges.

Our parents, for the most part, were not scholars by trade or social activists. This was Pittsburgh, after all, not New York. But they wanted us to get the best education. Allderdice was one of the finest public high schools in the country, a pioneer in the use of AP classes. And our folks weren’t ignorant of social change.

The dreams fired by that superb education—and the job-draining collapse of the city’s steel-based economy—sent most of us elsewhere to live, work and rear our own families. (We’re the ones waving Terrible Towels when the Steelers visit our adopted towns.)

But by far the biggest contingent of Marquis expats is in California, with most of the rest elsewhere in the Sunbelt. Of the 25 of us who survive (out of 29 originally) only five live in Pittsburgh.

What kind of work do we do? As I count it, there are six businessmen (plus one of us who cops to being a mortgage banker), five lawyers, three doctors, a dentist, a computer programmer, a social worker, a federal bureaucrat, a charity fundraiser, a cantor, one guy whose occupation is “loafing” and a farmer—yes, a farmer.

Of the 21 Marquis who voted for a candidate in our little survey, 18 were for Obama, two for McCain and one for libertarian-independent Bob Barr. The tally was 18-3, plus 9-0 among the women on the list, for a grand total of 27-3.

Why?

At this point I want to turn the Marquis gavel over to Howie Gordon, the club’s most charismatic, committed leader. Naturally, he tends the email list and conducted the survey. A writer and father of three, he and his wife, Jeremy, have lived since for decades in Berkeley, California.

One factor, Gordon and his wife suggested to me in an email, was personal and particular to our little group. The Marquis had forged a strong bond and had maintained it across the continent and the decades. Their communal dialogue “has not been about advancing their careers or fortunes,” she said. “It’s basically sentimental, heartfelt, loving. The kind of people interested in such a thing, probably tend to be more idealistic, more prone to hope.”

It’s just my guess, but the advent of Gov. Sarah Palin and her backwoods evangelism may not have helped the GOP cause with my fellow club members.

The rest of the explanation, Howie said, was generational.

“We were the children of the generation that won World War II,” he wrote me. “We are the children of what was a rising and successful middle class...who were so free of the daily struggle just to eat and have a roof over our heads that we actually had the luxury of being able to care about the lives of people less fortunate than ourselves.

“We were weaned on the Nuremberg Trials,” he continued, “ and taught that there was a right way and a wrong way to live in this world.

 “We came of age with the American civil-rights movement and understood the simple correctness of Martin Luther King in seeking to lead his own people to social justice, just as Moses had once led ours.

 “And you ask, `Why Obama? And, ‘why now?’ Well, let’s just say, it’s been a long time comin’, the way I see it.”

At the end of this week, China will send an important signal about its commitment to greater press freedom. The trouble is no one yet knows whether it will step forwards or backwards. Foreign journalists in Beijing are eager to know because we're directly affected, but our readers will be too. What's more, what happens to reporting rights for foreign journalists may also hold hints about future prospects for the Chinese media, who are the real key to well-informed public debate emerging here.

What's at issue is State Council Decree No. 477. The decree expires on Oct 17th. It's full Orwellian name is the Regulations on Reporting Activities in China by Foreign Journalists During the Beijing Olympic Games and the Preparatory Period, which is a pretty good description of what it was about. It eased serious restrictions on the rights of foreign journalists. Before its Jan 2007 introduction, foreign correspondents had to ask for local government permission to do interviews in any province or city they wanted to visit. This required them to give the provincial foreign affairs office a full interview list and schedule. Interviewees were often swiftly intimidated or permission denied.

In practice, journalists often ignored this restriction and the authorities increasingly let us get away with it.  Nonetheless such interviews were illegal, so Decree No. 477 was a big step forward. It says foreign journalists need only obtain "prior consent" from organizations or individuals they want to interview.

It hasn't worked perfectly. Many thuggish local officials have tried to stop journalists doing their work and some reporters have even been wrestled to the ground or had equipment damaged. It excluded Tibet, and during Tibetan protests in March reporters were turned away from Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai provinces too. Up till Sept 11 2008, the Foreign Correspondents' Club of China had documented 336 cases of interference in reporting. What's more so many incidents took place during the Olympic period that interference this year has already overtaken the whole of last year, with 176 cases by early September, compared to 160 in 2007. But it was a step forward. These Olympic reporting rules expire on Friday. So last week, someone asked the Foreign Ministry's spokesman at a regular press briefing to tell us what'll happen. Here's what he said:

"Though the Beijing Olympics is over, China's principle of opening up stays unchanged. The door of China remains open to the world. Foreign media and journalists are welcome to report in China as always. We will continue to provide active facilitation and assistance to you. This will remain Was that a "Yes"? Or was it a "No"?  It sounds OK, but might not be. You'll notice spokesman Qin Gang didn't actually answer the question. In fact, listening to him, I wondered if nothing will happen on Friday and we'll be left to go on guessing.

Barack Obama's sizable advantages in both national and battleground surveys have held steady for at least a week. So it's only natural that the chattering classes would start to get antsy. Eager for the next plot twist--and running out of stuff to say on cable--a number of pundits have taken to speculating about whether Obama will win this or that red state. First it was North Carolina, which looks plausible enough. Then it was Missouri--also a possibility. But now that talk has turned to West Virginia, I feel as if it's my solemn journalistic duty to deliver a bit of a reality check.

Simply put, McCain shouldn't sweat the Mountain State.  

In defense of Chris Matthews and Co., it's easy to see why it's such an attractive subject for speculation. For decades, the thoroughly working-class West Virginia--one of only two states to vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980 AND Michael Dukakis in 1988--was among the bluest states in the union. In fact, Republicans managed to win West Virginia only twice between 1960 and 1996--during the massive GOP landslides of 1972 and 1984. But now the tables have turned. In 2000, the state chose George W. Bush over Al Gore, 52 to 46 percent; four years later, Bush doubled his winning margin to 13 points. The story--for what its worth--was that West Virginia's white working class had chosen to vote its values (Republicans) over its economic interests (Democrats).

Now, after a May primary in which Hillary Clinton clobbered Obama 67 to 26--a result that generated a flurry of stories about Obama's "Appalachian problem," most with Charleston datelines--an Obama victory on Election Day would provide the commentariat with "proof" of the grand theory it's already advancing as to "why Obama won": because the economy trumped race. As if on cue, the polling average in West Virginia has narrowed to 2.2 points since the start of the month. Meanwhile, reports have surfaced that Obama is advertising in markets that bleed across the Ohio and Virginia borders--and, as a result, Sarah Palin was said to be embarking on a defensive bus tour. Sensing a potential shift, Beltway sage Charlie Cook moved the Mountain State into his toss-up column over the weekend, and the cable newsniks began repeating the words "Obama is even winning West Virginia!" as if it were some sort of mantra.

Now for the reality check. Palin did land in Kenova, W. Va. yesterday morning--but only for geographic convenience. She quickly drove across the border into Ohio, and so far, there have been no signs--no visits, no ads, no nothing--suggesting that either Obama or McCain is paying particular attention to the state. That's undoubtedly the right decision. While it's true that the average polling gap between McCain and Obama is smaller this month than last, that's only because of a single sounding: the Oct. 8 survey from American Research Group, which shows Obama leading by eight. One poll, however, does not a trend make. Previous Mountain State surveys showed McCain ahead by four to eight points; it would be irresponsible to ignore them until another pollster puts out some stats. ARG is famous--or infamous--for quirky results, and the prediction whizzes at FiveThirtyEight still give McCain a 67 percent chance of victory.

Could Obama win? Absolutely. But ultimately it doesn't matter whether the economy has boosted the Democrat in West Virginia, or by how much. It simply won't be one of this year's tipping point states. For West Virginia's five electoral votes to make a difference, they'd have to be putting Obama over the top--adding, for example, to a map that includes John Kerry's 2004 properties plus Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada. But if Obama's winning white, working-class West Virginia, it's pretty much impossible to imagine that he hasn't already won less white, less working-class Ohio (20 electoral votes) and Virginia (13)--both states where he's actually ahead the polls. In fact, FiveThirtyEight predicts that Obama will also win Colorado, Florida, Missouri and North Carolina before he wins West Virginia. Meaning that if the Illinois senator does manage swing the Mountain State, he'll already have a whopping 350 electoral votes in his pocket--and, with them, the presidency.

Bottom line: McCain shouldn't worry about West Virginia. He simply has too many other states to stress about.
 

In the first installment of our new "What McCain Should Do" series--which seeks to bring you the smartest and savviest in unsolicited advice for the struggling Republican nominee--we highlighted Ross Douthat's plan for a "Bailout for Main Street." McCain should "announce that in light of the epic crisis, he's going to postpone his entire domestic agenda (such as it is) for, say, two years in favor of a short-term but expensive stimulus package aimed directly at the middle and working class," he wrote. Then "put as much energy into selling it as [he's] put into trying to rebrand Barack Obama as radical, vacuous, unready to lead."

Now, one week later, the candidate has done just that. Unfortunately for the GOP, the candidate we're referring to is Barack Obama, who's scheduled to unveil a new "Economic Rescue Plan for the Middle Class" this afternoon in Toledo, Ohio. Combining existing proposals with a handful of new ideas--a temporary tax credit for firms that create new jobs in the United States over the next two years; a 90-day foreclosure moratorium for any homeowners making good faith efforts pay their mortgages--Obama's "Main Street" bailout will likely solidify Obama's already sizable advantage on the economic policy front among worried middle-class voters.

It wasn't always going to be this way. In fact, McCain was reportedly planning to "roll out new proposals this week that would be aimed at restoring confidence in financial markets and encouraging investors to return." On Sunday, close adviser Sen. Lindsey Graham even appeared on CBS's Face the Nation to announce that McCain would soon launch “a very comprehensive approach to jump-start the economy, by allowing capital to be formed easier in America by lowering taxes." But hours later a meeting at headquarters during which aides presented McCain with 30 options for new economic measures collapsed under the weight of "internal confusion," according to the New York Times--and plans for an economic policy push were put on the shelf.

So now it's back to the drawing board. Our first and, so far, favorite suggestion appears on this morning's Times op-ed page, where William Kristol--who previously told Sarah Palin that McCain should hammer on Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.--proposes that McCain engineer what we'll hereby refer to as a "Bulworth Moment." In the eponymous 1998 film, California Senator Jay Billington Bulworth (Warren Beatty) decides, having reached the end of his political life, that he might as well say whatever's on his mind--a move that makes him an instant media darling and revives his flagging campaign. Kristol's plan for McCain is strikingly similar:

It’s time for John McCain to fire his campaign. He has nothing to lose. His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama’s... The McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic. If the race continues over the next three weeks to be a conventional one, McCain is doomed...

The 2008 campaign is now about something very big — both our future prosperity and our national security. Yet the McCain campaign has become smaller. What McCain needs to do is junk the whole thing and start over. Shut down the rapid responses, end the frantic e-mails, bench the spinning surrogates, stop putting up new TV and Internet ads every minute. In fact, pull all the ads — they’re doing no good anyway. Use that money for televised town halls and half-hour addresses in prime time. And let McCain go back to what he’s been good at in the past — running as a cheerful, open and accessible candidate. Palin should follow suit. The two of them are attractive and competent politicians. They’re happy warriors and good campaigners. Set them free.

Provide total media accessibility on their campaign planes and buses. Kick most of the aides off and send them out to swing states to work for the state coordinators on getting voters to the polls. Keep just a minimal staff to help organize the press conferences McCain and Palin should have at every stop and the TV interviews they should do at every location. Do town halls, do the Sunday TV shows, do talk radio — and invite Obama and Biden to join them in some of these venues, on the ground that more joint appearances might restore civility and substance to the contest...

McCain should stop unveiling gimmicky proposals every couple of days that pretend to deal with the financial crisis. He should tell the truth — we’re in uncharted waters, no one is certain what to do, and no one knows what the situation will be on Jan. 20, 2009. But what we do know is that we could use someone as president who’s shown in his career the kind of sound judgment and strong leadership we’ll need t