(Jim Bourg / AP)

Barack Obama and John McCain spent most of tonight's debate roaming aimlessly across an expanse of red carpet at Nashville's Belmont University. For McCain to "win," Obama would've had to slip on a banana peel during one of his ambles--whether rhetorical or actual. He didn't come close.

In fact, it was McCain--the only candidate on stage who was trailing by six points and roughly 100 electoral votes at the start of the show--who may have slipped further behind by evening's end.

On substance, both Obama and McCain had their moments. Obama dominated the health-care discussion, movingly evoking his mother's death from cancer at age 53 to explain why coverage should be a fundamental right for every American. When McCain characterized Obama's approach as "government will do this and government will do that," Obama calmly reiterated that the only mandates in his plan were for children--who, after all, "relatively cheap to insure and [shouldn't be going] to the emergency room for treatable illnesses like asthma"--and explained that for everyone else, "if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it." Meanwhile, McCain presented his own plan in paragraphs too convoluted for even his policy advisers to unpack. "You can go across state lines, maybe into Arizona," he said. "They may offer a better plan that suits you best than it does here in Tennessee. If you do the math, those people who have employer based health benefits, if you put the tax on it and you have what's left over and you add $5,000 that you're going to get as a refundable tax credit--do the math." Come again?

Obama was equally effective countering McCain's charge that he doesn't understand talking softly and carrying a big stick. "This is the guy who sang, 'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,' who called for the annihilation of North Korea," he said. "That I don't think is an example of 'speaking softly.' This is the person who, after we had--we hadn't even finished Afghanistan, where he said, 'Next up, Baghdad.'" When McCain tried to interrupt, Obama simply extended his arm and continued talking.

On the other hand, McCain clearly outshone Obama on the question of when humanitarian intervention is warranted abroad, explaining clearly and calmly that although "we want to stop genocide... we need to temper our decisions [by judging our] ability to beneficially affect the situation." "I know those situations," he added. "I've been in them all my life." In contrast, Obama delivered a garbled response--"who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to... intervene in the Holocaust?"--that ended with an equivocation about intervention being "something that we would have to strongly consider" if awarded a mulligan in Rwanda. Not exactly spine-tingling stuff.

Overall, however, both candidates did what they came to do, at least on substance: Obama emphasized the middle class and hammered the "McCain is President Bush" theme in nearly every answer; McCain repeatedly attacked Obama's economic policies before reverting to homilies about the "greatness of America" (as if to imply a contrast with his Democratic rival). The problem was that neither contender broke any new ground on the issues. It was, in effect, a remarkably flat (even boring) event--more a guided tour of each candidate's talking points than a free-flowing exchange of ideas. There was no news. Those inclined to agree with McCain today will still agree with him tomorrow, and vice versa; swing voters won't be swayed by new revelations about taxes, or health care, or the environment, or Iraq (hint: there weren't any). As a result, the public--and, just as importantly, the press--will focus on the only memorable aspect of the encounter: style. And that doesn't bode well for McCain.

At the start of the show, the Arizona senator made an interesting remark: "Sen. Obama, it’s good to be with you at a town-hall meeting." It's one he may come to regret. For starters, McCain's favored format didn't actually favor McCain. While the Republican nominee may prefer loose, informal town halls to stilted set-piece speeches, tonight's debate was too restricted to allow for much spontaneity--and McCain, usually alone on stage during his own town halls, suffered from the direct physical comparison to Obama. Not only was the Illinois senator more fluid and graceful than his tense, awkward Republican rival--who, attempting intimacy, often seemed to come too close to his questioners--but he also did a better job accomplishing the (admittedly theatrical) task of repeating people's names and seeming to respond directly to their questions. It's not that McCain didn't have good moments: his first answer ("Americans are angry, they're upset, and they're a little fearful") was notably empathetic, and his firm handshake with a naval retiree near the end of the night was genuinely moving. Obama, meanwhile, sounded at times like he was lecturing the audience instead of feeling its pain. But overall, the Democrat appeared less nervous, less tentative and more "in control," especially when interacting with voters or parrying McCain's attacks. (Focus groups appreciated, for example, that he knew the price of gas in Nashville.) Are these superficial concerns? Absolutely. But when Obama's whole closing argument is that he's a calmer, cooler, more reliable leader than McCain, they're hardly inconsequential.

The other problem with McCain's opening remark--a jab at Obama for weaseling out of last summer's proposed town halls--was that it was merely the first of several petty comments to emanate from the right side of the stage. Refusing to refer to Obama as "Barack," McCain never passed up an opportunity to mock his opponent, whether it was for requesting an overheard projector for a Chicago planetarium or failing to specify the size of his proposed health-care fine. Taken individually, these pre-scripted interjections might have made McCain seem like an amused old pro schooling a wayward rookie. Together, however, they conveyed outright disdain. Far too often, McCain was only the one laughing at his own jokes--an image that risked reinforcing the impression that he's too "angry and erratic" to be president (which is the main reason McCain is losing in the first place). The situation came to a head when McCain, referred to the "Bush and Cheney" energy bill with a rhetorical question--"you know who voted for it?"--that he was quick to answer. "That one," he said, flicking his arm in Obama's general direction. The moment--which tidily summed up McCain's dismissive (even dehumanizing) attitude toward his opponent--immediately appeared on YouTube; after the show, it dominated the cable chat shows. Given the way political coverage works these days, "That One" may be all we remember of tonight's tedious debate in two weeks' time.

Reasonable people may disagree over the relative importance of style and substance this evening in Nashville. That's fine. But the fact is, even a draw wouldn't have helped McCain. Judging by the polls, Obama would win an election held today in a landslide--which means that merely holding his own was good enough. McCain, meanwhile, can't catapult himself back into contention unless he changes the contest's dynamic. Tonight's debate--an unfiltered encounter with 60-70 million potential voters--was one of his last opportunities to do it. He didn't. According to CBS News's post-debate poll, Obama won the match 40 percent to 26 percent; likewise, CNN's flash survey gave the Democrat a 54-30 percent advantage. Ultimately, this means that McCain didn't just fail to "change the game" tonight in Nashville. He actually came one step closer to losing.
 

With only an hour to go, the question on the tip of every pundit's tongue is how John McCain can "win" tonight's town-hall debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn. 

A few things are clear enough. If "winning" means positioning oneself for victory on Election Day, McCain has a much harder night ahead of him than Barack Obama. Judging by the polls, Obama would win an election held today in a landslide--which means that he can afford to coast, to not make any mistakes. McCain, meanwhile, has to change the dynamic in order to catapult himself back into contention. And tonight's debate--an unfiltered encounter with 60-70 million potential voters--is one of his last opportunities to do it.

Given this rather inconvenient truth--and the nasty tenor of the past few days--many observers have assumed that McCain will come out swinging. "There should be drama aplenty, writes the New Republic's Noam Scheiber. "If anything, too much." But I suspect that it'd be a massive mistake for McCain to open a can of whupass on Obama. I've already written about why going negative in general may hurt McCain more than it helps him; suffice it to say that mudsling delivers diminishing returns when 40 percent of the electorate feels negatively about you. But more specifically, McCain would not be catering to any of tonight's three audiences--the audience in the hall, the audience watching on TV or the audience (like me) analyzing the event in the media--by baring his teeth.

As Bill Clinton proved, town-hall debates--i.e., debates in which a moderator fields questions from an audience of actual voters--are all about empathy. Pivoting from a citizen's well-intentioned question about, say, health care to a pre-scripted attack on Obama's patriotism will strike a seriously discordant note in the hall and give Obama yet another opportunity to paint McCain as "out of touch." (According to a new CNN poll, "55 percent of registered voters already say that Obama "cares more about people like [them]" than McCain, with [only] 35 percent saying McCain cares more than Obama). On television, the effect would be worse. The first McCain-Obama debate showed that TV viewers take style as seriously as substance; on points, the two combatants fought to a draw, but voters far preferred Obama's even temper to McCain peevish, condescending manner. Tonight, voters will be especially swayed by style, as the candidates casually orbit each other and interact with voters from a shared stage. Physically, McCain is already at a disadvantage; he's shorter and (thanks to war injuries) less graceful than Obama. Any grimace, any lurch, any refusal to make eye contact will only be magnified in this informal setting. An actual attack would seem far worse. Last but not least, the media is fully expecting McCain to throw punches. If he does, he won't make news. There's no element of surprise.

And that's the main reason I think McCain should hold back (and hold back ostentatiously). For the MSM, a "gracious McCain"--a McCain who invokes the ideals of honor, sacrifice and bipartisanship--represents a compelling, ready-made narrative: Mac is Back and being true to the better angels of his nature (instead of campaign guru Steve Schmidt). I'm not saying this will be true, necessarily. But given the expectations--and how dramatically and news-worthily such a performance would depart from them--I bet it's what Chris Matthews and Co. would say. Attacking would only reinforce the impression that McCain is erratic and angry--which is the reason he's losing in the first place. Why not do something that would actually enhance his reputation--and contradict the prevailing narrative--instead of damaging it?

Of course, simply being polite won't cut it. Town-hall debates are all about "moments"--the telling displays of emotion that catch on with the press and the public. Tonight, McCain needs a moment. More specifically, a moment that accentuates the positive aspects of his character. Over at TNR's The Plank, Jason Zengerle wrote earlier today about what could've been just such a moment for McCain:

In case you haven't seen it, watch this video [above] from a campaign rally McCain held yesterday in New Mexico. After McCain asks, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" someone in the crowd yells "Terrorist!" For a second there, McCain looks slightly taken aback, but then he pushes aside whatever qualms he might have and simply plunges ahead with the rest of his speech. What if McCain, instead of continuing with his speech, had stopped cold, looked the audience member in the eye, and gently but sternly rebuked him with a homily about how we're all Americans and the problem with Obama isn't that he's a bad man or a terrorist, but that he's wrong on the issues? Sure, it would have been hypocritical--it's no coincidence McCain's supporters think Obama's a terrorist when you've got Sarah Palin accusing him of palling around with one--but it would have been dramatic and mavericky as hell, too. It would have been the lead campaign story on all the networks, it would have become a YouTube sensation, and it would have burnished McCain's badly tarnished brand as an atypically honorable and different sort of politician. 

McCain, in other words, missed his opportunity. Tonight's town-hall debate is unscripted enough--just barely--to include the possibility of a similar moment. If McCain's smart, he should be crossing his fingers for a second chance--and he should be ready to run with it if it arrives. A good moment may not be enough to turn the tide for McCain. But it's better than the other options.

Thoughts? Disagreements? Amendments? Ad hominem attacks? The comments are all yours. Leave your take below; I'll be back later this evening with my post-show analysis. 
 

(Via RealClear Politics)

There's no doubt--either among Republicans, Democrats, Independents or Martians--that if the 2008 presidential election were held today, Barack Obama would defeat John McCain. According to the poll aggregators at RealClear Politics, Obama would amass 264 electoral votes in an Oct. 7 election solely from states that favor him by more than six percent. That's six EVs shy of the White House. Toss in one more state (only one) where Obama is currently winning by a smaller spread--either Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado or Missouri--and it's game, set, match. Obama's average national lead? Nearly 6 percent--more than double the size of George W. Bush's 2004 margin of victory.

Fortunately for the GOP, the election is still 28 days away. Which is why Republicans, Democrats, Independents and Martians--everyone except for former Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, who has boldly proclaimed that "the race is over"--agrees, at least publicly, that "it is uphill for McCain, but a victory is doable." Things could happen, they say. The numbers could change. But setting aside the obvious caveat--anything that hasn't happened yet could, by definition, still happen--does history give us any reason to believe that it will happen? (Assuming Obama doesn't spontaneously combust.) To answer that question, I compared battleground polling from the first week of Oct. 2004 to that election's eventual outcome--and the current contest. What I found is that a state's polling average on or around Oct. 10 is a pretty accurate predictor of who will win on Election Day--and by how much.

Here are implications for this year's McCain-Obama match-up:

McCain is almost guaranteed to lose at least two Bush states: Iowa and New Mexico. In early Oct. 2004, Bush led both states by slightly less than one percent on average; a month later, he ended up winning both states by the same margin. In contrast, McCain currently trails Obama by 9.5 percent in Iowa and 7.3 percent in New Mexico. If the 2004 pattern holds, Obama should do as well in Iowa and New Mexico as he's expected to do in non-battlegrounds like New Jersey, Washington and Oregon.

To compensate for Iowa and New Mexico, McCain hopes to win one or more of the following Kerry states: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota or New Hampshire. He probably won't. Simply put, Obama's current leads in these states are larger--much larger--than Kerry's were precisely four years ago. Let's compare. In Minnesota, Kerry was ahead by an average of 3.8 percent in early October; he went on to win by 3.5. In Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, Kerry held narrow October advantages--1.3 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively--that eventually expanded into slightly wider Election Day victories. Meanwhile, it was Bush who was ahead by 1.5 percent in Wisconsin at this stage of the game--even though Kerry went on to win by 0.4 percent. By comparison, Obama is currently clobbering McCain by 6.7 percent in Wisconsin; 10.5 percent in Minnesota; 10.7 percent in New Hampshire; and 11 percent in Pennsylvania. To win any of these states, McCain will not only have to defy history--he'll have to defy the laws of political gravity.

Right now, Obama is outperforming Kerry (and beating McCain) in six Bush-won battlegrounds--any one of which could put him over 270 electoral votes. At this point in 2004, Bush was ahead by 3.3 percent in Florida; Obama currently leads McCain by three points. In Ohio, Bush was ahead by 2.7 percent; Obama currently leads by 3.8. In Missouri, it was Bush by four percent; now it's Obama by 0.3. And in three states where Bush was averaging leads of five points or more on Oct. 10--Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina--Obama is now winning by notable margins (four percent, 4.8 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively). On Election Day 2004, Bush managed to maintain his lead in each and every one of these states. If Obama can keep just one of them in his column--say, Virginia--he'll be the next president of the United States. 

Will Obama lose a point or two here or there because of the Bradley Effect (i.e. overstated support for black candidates)? Perhaps. But sizable gains in Democratic registration numbers in 11 key battleground states and expected turnout increases among young voters and African-Americans will likely offset any race-related losses. Again, anything could happen--like, say, a McCain comeback. But recent history, at least, gives us no reason to expect that it will.

When it comes to political narratives, actions speak louder than words.

Yesterday, I outlined why John McCain's newly aggressive anti-Obama strategy--Question: "Who is Barack Obama?" Answer: Someone who's "palling around with terrorists"--isn't likely to work. One reason: it may be too late to define Obama as a dangerous radical. This isn't a matter of timing, per se; many voters don't tune in until October. It's a matter of actions.

The most effective way to damage a political opponent is by wrapping his personality and policies in a credible metanarrative that provides voters with a readymade perspective on everything he says and does. In 2004, for example, Republicans labeled John Kerry an opportunistic flip-flopper. The tag stuck largely because Kerry's claim that he voted for $87 billion in war funding before he voted against it seemed to confirm voters' preexisting suspicions. Similarly, McCain wants the electorate to believe that Obama is a dangerously inexperienced radical.

But the problem for McCain is that he doesn't have an iconic "Voted for It Before I Voted Against" moment to anchor his accusations. Merely saying that Obama is a dangerous radical--perhaps because the Illinois senator crossed paths with some questionable characters in the past--isn't going to cut it. If McCain hopes to sell his salvo, he needs to find real-time, newsmaking examples of Obama acting dangerous, or radical, or inexperienced, or whatever. As former Hillary Clinton spokesman Phil Singer recently wrote, "political attacks work best when the charge they make is echoed by the subject of those attacks." Unfortunately for McCain, Obama has done nothing--again, in real time--to convince voters that he's either dangerous, radical or dangerously, radically inexperienced.

In fact, much the opposite. Here's where actions--namely, the candidates' responses to the Wall Street meltdown--enter into the equation. The collapse of America's financial infrastructure was not only a major historical event; it was the first major event to happen after the country finally tuned in to the presidential race. As such, it had increased potential to shape perceptions of the candidates; after all, many voters were seeing McCain and Obama "in action" for the first time.

Unfortunately for McCain, the electorate preferred Obama's approach to the crisis. In last week's CBS News poll, 44 percent of voters approved of the Democratic nominee's response--12 percent more than than those who disapproved of his performance. McCain's grades, meanwhile, were reversed: 46 percent disapproval; 35 percent approval. Today's NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll discovered a similar disparity: the group of voters that felt reassured by Obama's reaction (34 percent) was 5 points larger than the group that felt less reassured (29 percent). Conversely, McCain's response resulted in a net "less assured" rating of 13 percent (25-38 percent). Whether or not you prefer Obama's crisis-management technique (staying calm and detached) to McCain's (suspending his campaign), the Democratic nominee clearly provided voters with real-time evidence that contradicted--rather than confirmed--the story McCain's trying to tell about him. That's the main reason Obama is rising in the polls.

Making matters worse is the fact that the financial crisis actually helped Obama tell the tale he's been itching to tell about McCain: that he's "erratic," unreliable and too impulsive to be president (the dark side, if you will, of "maverick.") Since then, Chicago has applied this frame--fairly or unfairly--to everything from McCain's health-care plan ("radical") to his sudden decision to attack ("erratic"). Unfortunately for McCain, Obama has basically boxed him in. Over the next month or so, the Arizonan has to shake things up if he hopes to overtake his opponent in the polls--even though every zigzag presents Team Obama with a new opportunity to call McCain "erratic." Meanwhile, Obama must simply avoid acting dangerous, radical or inexperienced to keep McCain's claims from sticking.

Whose shoes would you rather be in?

According to Milbank, "in Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her 'less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.' At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy.'"

Back to White. It was 1956. The author had just read an interview with Harry Truman in the New York Times in which the former president, reflecting on the 1948 election, claimed that the press--in White's paraphrasing--"was ninety percent hostile to his candidacy, distorted facts, caused his low popularity rating at that period, and tried to prevent him from reaching the people with his message in the campaign." Sound familiar?

The author had no trouble acknowledging Truman's complaint. "Democrats do a lot of bellyaching about the press being preponderantly Republican, which it is," he wrote. But as "a second-string member" of the media himself, White offered his readers a morsel of advice disguised as observation:

The beauty of the American free press is that the slants and the twists and the distortions come from so many directions, and the special interests are so numerous, the reader must sift and sort and check and countercheck in order to find out what the score is. This he does. It is only when a press gets its twist from a single source, as in the case of government-controlled press systems, that the reader is licked. 

Fifty-two years later, "the slants and twists and distortions" have only become more numerous and multidirectional (even if readers no longer assume the press is "Republican"). But that's created a problem. Rather than encouraging the electorate to engage in an even more vigorous process of sifting and sorting and checking and counterchecking, the recent eruption of information has simply allowed a lot of people to ignore published material that doesn't confirm their own preconceptions. Thanks to cable news and the Internet, it's easy to dismiss a discordant dispatch as "biased" and seek out a show or site that echoes what you already believe.

This is too bad. It's not that the press is perfect. Far from it. It's that (political expediency aside) bashing the media is even more pointless now than it was then, when the news was far more monolithic. Today, voters have more power to sift and sort and check and countercheck, not less. It's up to them to use it. As White wrote, in 1948 "millions of studious, worried Americans heard and read what [Truman] said; then they checked it against the editorials; then they walked silently into the voting booths returned him to office." Here's hoping the press plays just as modest a role in this election as it did in that one--despite all the sound and fury. And the thunder sticks.

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

CAMPAIGNS SHIFT TO ATTACK MODE ON EVE OF DEBATE
(Adam Nagourney, New York Times)
Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama entered their general election contest this summer denouncing American politics as trivial and negative, and vowing to run campaigns that would address the concerns of voters during a difficult time. But Mr. McCain made clear on Monday that he wanted to make the final month of the race a referendum on Mr. Obama’s character, background and leadership — a polite way of saying he intends to attack him on all fronts and create or reinforce doubts about him among as many voters as possible. And Mr. Obama’s campaign signaled that it would respond in kind, setting up an end game dominated by an invocation of events and characters from the lives of both candidates... In shifting toward a more negative and personal message, the two campaigns risked seeming detached from the economic anxieties of voters at a time when the financial system is teetering. The risk could be especially great for Mr. McCain, who has ceded political ground to Mr. Obama during the financial crisis and has taken the more combative stance in recent days. A lacerating speech he gave Monday — “Who is the real Barack Obama?” Mr. McCain asked — was shown on cable television juxtaposed with images of another horrible day on Wall Street.

BEWARE OF PONYTAIL GUY
(John Dickerson, Slate)
On Tuesday night, we'll get to hear from some of this campaign's swing voters—the rules of the debate guarantee their participation—as undecided voters pose questions to the candidates in the town-hall debate. It might be a snooze-fest, full of earnest questions and foggy bromides. But with the spike in negativity coming just ahead of the meeting, there is a chance that one of the two candidates will have to face a question about the harsh tone. There's been a lot of talk recently about Joe Six-Pack. How will he vote? What does he want? One thing we know: You don't want Joe Six Pack calling you out. Questions from regular voters are hard enough for politicians to handle—they can't be ignored as easily as journalists' questions—but as the campaign turns ugly, the candidates have to worry about questioners passing judgment. Son of Ponytail Guy will have a lot of material to work with... In town-hall debates, the questions from the crowd can easily be turned into "moments" that journalists cling to for weeks. We're always looking for vignettes that allow us to tell a larger story. A "moment" by a swing voter is particularly valuable. The questioner, after all, is representative of a worried nation (even if very few of us have ponytails). It's not just the journalists who obsess, though. Voters see themselves in other voters—particularly those defined by television anchors as independent-minded—and tend to repeat these moments to their friends.

DEBATE STAKES HIGHER FOR MCCAIN AS INSULTS MOUNT
(Liz Sidoti, Associated Press)
"Generally, the stakes in this are higher for McCain," said Phil Musser, a former executive director of the Republican Governors Association. "It's probably one of the last and most important opportunities for him to lay out an economic vision that resonates with middle America in a format that lends itself to doing just that." But Republicans and Democrats alike say even a strong McCain performance may not be enough. "McCain can win the debate, but the trajectory of this election would not be fundamentally altered unless Obama also made a pretty dramatic and serious mistake," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist in Vice President Al Gore's 2000 campaign. McCain is most comfortable during the give-and-take of question-and-answer events that were a hallmark of his 2000 campaign, and his 2008 primary effort. But his consistency largely depends on his mood. When he's on his game, McCain is witty and charming, filled with ready one-liners and stories from his past. When he's off, McCain can come across cranky, surly and prone to gaffes. Obama typically is much more at ease giving speeches from behind a lectern, though he has taken impromptu questions from audiences and has grown much more adept at the back-and-forth of voter-question sessions throughout the campaign. The debate provides the professorial Obama with an opportunity to show some emotion and seal the deal with voters still struggling to see him as president.

MCCAIN CAN'T DODGE THE ECONOMY
(Rich Lowry, National Review)
It doesn't matter how many times Sarah Palin rips Obama for consorting with Ayers, or if the McCain campaign runs exclusively Ayers and Wright TV ads for the next four weeks -- the subject of the campaign will remain resolutely unchanged... Not having a compelling economic message before the financial crisis hit was malpractice; now it's madness. McCain's pet causes of bipartisanship and earmark reform don't qualify as such a message. Bipartisanship is an empty concept; the parties can unite just as easily to pass foolhardy laws as necessary ones. Meanwhile, only John McCain would -- as he did in the first debate --steer a discussion about a complex global credit crunch onto earmarked federal spending for bear DNA research. McCain has suffered from his own manifest lack of interest in economic issues... McCain needs more focus on the economy rather than less... The race might take on the cast of the 1992 campaign. In the midst of economic discontent, George H.W. Bush ran against Bill Clinton on character and experience. Clinton pledged to fix the economy. Bush had little or nothing to offer the middle class, while Clinton (like Obama this year) promised those voters a tax cut. So, by all means, McCain should highlight Obama's troubling friendships, but he has to be careful. If it's the candidate of "change" versus the candidate of "change the subject," he'll lose in an electoral landslide.

Over at his new, must-read "Race to the Finish" blog--bookmark it if you haven't already--my NEWSWEEK colleague Howard Fineman has an excellent post up comparing Obama to Lincoln. The Illinois senator has long encouraged such comparisons; as early as 2006, for example, he likened his "reflective" temperament to Lincoln's in an interview with Jacob Weisberg. Superficially, it's easy to see the similarities: like Lincoln, Obama is a tall, lean, relatively inexperienced Illinois lawmaker who writes well, delivers uplifting speeches and represents racial progress. But Howard's item asks an important question: is the life that Obama has led--and the capacity to cope with crisis that he's developed as a result of it--actually like Lincoln's? His answer is no:

In the life Lincoln led before his victory in 1860, he was tested as perhaps no leader in America had ever been--by financial struggle, personal loss, public humiliation and political defeat. He had risen above all of that--from the humblest beginnings imaginable--to become one of the leading lawyers in Chicago. He had studied the country from the ground up and the inside out, from its farm fields and rivers to its corporate boardrooms. What testing, what true testing, has Obama ever faced besides eschewing a high-paying job out of Harvard Law School? To be blunt, his trials are a lot less Malcolm X than Obama's autobiography has made it seem. The psychological strain of being a mixed race youth in Honolulu was no doubt trying, but he had the support of well-connected and loving grandparents who saw that he had the best education available in the state of Hawaii. 

To skeptics, Obama is nothing more or less than a suburban prep-school graduate who did well at Columbia and Harvard, and who smoothly propelled himself upward. He deployed his eloquence, brains and charm to build contacts among progressive foundations, elite universities and members of the extended Daley family of Chicago. Obama's community-organizing work was not very controversial (or effective); his affirmative-action syllabus at the University of Chicago Law School was earnestly PC but carefully mainstream; his famous speech against the war in Iraq in 2002 was prescient but not so heroic given the time and place: the early stages of a U.S. Senate race that would require initial liberal support. Other than his one electoral loss, in 2000, when he impetuously ran for a U.S. House seat, what political adversity or long night of the soul has Obama faced?

These are excellent questions--and ultimately I think they're at the root of why Obama appeals so easily to younger, more privileged voters (as opposed to their older, bluer-collar brethren). Former McCain strategist Mike Murphy put it best back in August: "For many, Obama reminds them of the Ivy League whiz kids they've dealt with at work during the latest downsizing. They look at him and see another bloodless young achiever coming down from the top floor to fix the ailing machine-tool company. They listen to his polished pitch in the employee cafeteria, and he wins some converts. But after he is finished, a few old-timers exchange knowing glances and mutter to one another about how young this hotshot is... Deep down, they think he'd rather hit the executive gym for a cardio workout during lunch hour than share a cheesesteak and beer with the hourly workforce." No one would've said that about the Ol' Railsplitter.

Will these doubts cost Obama the election? I doubt it. Observers underestimate the self-reinforcing aspect of Obama's improbable rise--the "If He Could Do This, He Can Do Anything" Effect--at their own peril. One side effect of the current economic meltdown is that it seems to have convinced a substantial number of skeptics--"old timers" even--to take a risk on the race's "polished" "young achiever," regardless of whether or not they can imagine buying him a brewski. For the time being, at least, these voters seem to be listening to their heads more than their hearts. Still, Howard's right to say--despite his expertly crafted campaign narrative--that we don't know much about how Obama deals with adversity. Will he be like Lincoln: fair, tough, pragmatic and wise? Or will he react more like Woodrow Wilson, the nation's other "inexperienced" president: with cerebral haughtiness? Given the country's crushing debt, tanking economy and inescapable military commitments--not to mention the transcendental challenges of global warming, energy independence and Islamic extremism--we may be about to find out the hard way.

This is may be October--but it's not much of a surprise. In the midst of a financial crisis that's boosted Barack Obama in nearly every key battleground state and cost McCain--according to his own advisers--about "five points" in the national polls, the Republican nominee over the weekend launched an "aggressive assault on... Obama's character" in an attempt to close the polling gap by "shift[ing] the conversation back to questions about the Democrat's judgment, honesty and personal associations."

The onslaught began Saturday, when Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told three separate crowds that Obama is "not a man who sees America like you and I see America"--mainly, she said, because he "is palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." (She was referencing Weather Underground founder William Ayers--a man with whom Obama does not "appear to have been close," according to the New York Times, and whose "radical views and actions" Obama has never "expressed sympathy for.") It continued Sunday with GOP strategists affiliated with the McCain campaign telling the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder that "they plan to highlight Obama's alleged contacts with individuals who they say have been linked to terrorist organizations, including controversial Columbia Prof. Rashid Khalidi, accused without real evidence of being a former PLO spokesperson." This morning, Palin resurfaced, calling on her running mate--surely not without his campaign's knowledge--to bring up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. "I don't know why that association isn't discussed more," she said in an interview with the New York Times' Bill Kristol. "Those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that - with, I don't know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn't get up and leave--to me, that does say something about character." And in today New Mexico McCain called his opponent--in the words of one observer--a "mystery, a liar, complicit in the economic crisis and an unaccomplished naïf, at all the same time."

To paraphrase the Bangles: it's just another Muddy Monday.

With less than 30 days to go until Nov. 4, it's no wonder Team McCain is going on the attack. In fact, his own operatives have made their motivations perfectly clear. "We've got to question this guy's associations," a senior Republican strategist told the Washington Post on Saturday. "Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here." This morning, a "top McCain strategist" was even more explicit in an interview with the New York Daily News. "It's a dangerous road, but we have no choice," he said. "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose." In other words, McCain believes that the only way he can win the White House is by painting Obama as a chancy, radical choice who will endanger all that America holds dear--and hoping that the electorate votes for the Republican ticket (the "safer," more familiar option) by default. As the Arizonan's new attack ad puts it, "Obama [is] too risky for America."

There's no doubt, then, how McCain and Co. will spend the final month of the 2008 campaign. The question is: Will it work?

My hunch is no. Here are five reasons why:

1. The Economy Isn't Going Anywhere: This morning, the Dow fell nearly 800 points, dipping below 10,000 for the first time since 2004. The U.S. economy dumped 159,000 jobs in September. Unemployment hit a five-year high. Americans have lost a combined $1 trillion in net worth over the last month alone. Whatever concerns voters might have about Obama's former minister or a guy the senator once sat on a board with pale in comparison at this point to concerns about their own economic security; the economy, simply put, is bigger than Bill Ayers. Every time Team McCain mentions Ayers, Obama will simply argue that his rival is ignoring the economic elephant in the room. "Senator McCain and his operatives are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance," he said yesterday in Asheville, N.C. "I want you to know that I'm going to keep on talking about the issues that matter--about the economy and health care and education and energy." Obama looks like change; McCain looks like he's changing the subject. As a matter of mechanics, it's going to be very difficult for McCain to transform an election occurring in the midst of the gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression into a referendum on his opponent's Rolodex, especially given that...

2. Ayers and Wright Aren't Exactly "Breaking News": The Politico's Ben Smith first reported on Ayers last February; the country spent all of April talking about Wright. In other words, every "association" that Palin and McCain are intending to highlight before Nov. 4 has already been highlighted. Reporters are treating this as a story about McCain's newly negative tactics--not as an opportunity to reheat material they first served up last spring. That's bad news for McCain. Sure, some voters are unsettled by the fact that Obama once worked on an education project with a unrepentant (if rehabilitated) '60s radical and spent decades listening to sermons by a man who adheres to Black Liberation Theology--and they're not voting for Obama, at least in part, because of it. But given that the Illinois senator went on to win the Democratic nomination and build a sizable lead in state and national surveys after the Ayers and Wright stories first broke, it appears as if many swing voters--not conservatives, but swing voters--have largely decided that they're comfortable with Obama's past. Absent any new revelations, it's hard to imagine that rehashed information will change their views--except, perhaps, on the sort of campaign McCain is running. The fact is, Ayers and Wright are probably priced--at least in part--into the current polling, which means...

3. There Aren't a Whole Lot of Swingers to Be Swung: If the election were held today, Obama would beat McCain 52 percent to 44 percent, with four percent of the vote going to third-party candidates (at least according to the latest Rasmussen tracking poll). Of course, the election is still a month away--which means, in theory, that McCain can still catch up. The problem for the Arizona senator is that he doesn't have much room for error. Right now (again, according to Rasmussen), 44 percent of voters say they're certain they'll vote for Obama, while a mere 38 percent say the same thing about McCain. That leaves only 14 percent of the electorate up for grabs--an eight-percent bloc that's currently leaning toward Obama plus a six-percent bloc that's currently leaning toward McCain. Imagine a room with 100 people in it. Forty-four of them are already on the left side; they're voting for Obama, no matter what. Thirty-eight are on the right side; they're sold on McCain. In the middle, eight voters are leaning to the left; six are leaning to the right. To win, Obama must simply make sure that six of his eight leaners vote Democratic; he can afford to lose two of his leaners to McCain (perhaps over Wright/Ayers/etc.) McCain, on the other hand, must retain all six of leaners AND steal six of the eight voters who currently prefer Obama. In other words, he has to double his share of the persuadable electorate between now and Nov. 4. Could it happen? It could. But it's unlikely, mainly because...

4. Last-Minute Attacks May Damage McCain As Much--if Not More--Than Obama: FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver makes an important point: 

If the McCain campaign brings up William Ayers -- or Jeremiah Wright -- it will almost certainly be seen as attack politics. This might seem to be stating the obvious. But remember that this wasn't the case during the primaries. The Wright and Ayers stories were instead driven by actual news -- ABC's reporting of Wright's inflammatory sermons, for instance -- and were largely not pushed by the Clinton campaign. So unless McCain's oppo research team is sitting on some fresh news about Obama's ties to Ayers or Wright, the stories are liable to be reported as a typical partisan attack, which will impeach their credibility in the public's eyes and reduce their staying power.

The only news here is McCain's negative strategy; we've already litigated Wright and Ayers. As a result, Silver adds, "it may be quite difficult for McCain to attack Obama in this fashion without significantly damaging his own brand." For much of the cycle, McCain's net favorability rating--the gap between the percentage of voters who feel positively about him and the percentage who feel negatively--tended to rise and fall with Obama's. But while Obama's net favorables have surged to about 22 percent over the past few weeks, McCain's have plummeted to six or so. By recycling old attacks on Obama, McCain may narrow the gap between Illinois senator's positive and negative numbers. But the strategy is liable to have the same effect on McCain himself. Sure, partisans may cheer McCain's efforts. But at the end of the day, it's unlikely that McCain would emerge from a slash-and-burn campaign having increased his net favorability rating. Obama's, meanwhile, would probably still hover in the double digits--even if it takes a few hits. That disparity--the simple fact that voters now see Obama in a more favorable light than McCain--would make it extremely difficult for the Arizonan to pry three-quarters of Obama's leaners away from him (which, again, is the only way he'll reach 50 percent in the polls). GOP strategist Lee Atwater famously proclaimed that any candidate with unfavorables over 40 was dead. McCain's currently average 39.6 percent. Making matters worse is the fact that...

5. The Obama Campaign Has Muddied the Waters on Riskiness and Associations: It's the least remarked-upon aspect of the current financial crisis--but perhaps the most important from a political perspective. Since the collapse of Lehman Brothers late last month, Obama has used the meltdown as an opportunity to portray himself as a safe and steady leader. At the same time, he has framed McCain's every move as needlessly reckless--or, to use Team Obama's lingo, "erratic." The point? To reverse the conventional wisdom and portray McCain as the riskier choice. Obama has succeeded, at least in part: according to the latest CBS News poll, 61 percent of voters say they're very or somewhat confident in Obama's ability to handle the economy. McCain's score? A mere 49 percent. Meanwhile, 44 percent approve of Obama's handling of the financial crisis versus only 35 percent for McCain. As a result, 52 percent of voters now say that Obama is prepared to be president, up six points since late September. Earlier this cycle, McCain would have had an easier time defining Obama as dangerous radical. But now that the electorate has witnessed Obama "in action"--and seems to have decided that it prefers his economic leadership to McCain's--the burden of proof is much higher. Swing voters now have a choice: do they believe what McCain says about Obama--i.e., "Who is Barack Obama?"--or what they themselves have seen him say and do? I suspect they're inclined to trust their own eyes and ears over innuendo, for better or for worse. This wasn't always the case.

Also complicating McCain's new message: the fact that Chicago has authorized its surrogates to mention McCain's and Palin's questionable associations whenever they're asked about Wright or Ayers. That's why on Meet the Press yesterday Paul Begala "noted that McCain once 'sat on the board of a very right wing organization,' the U.S. Council for World Freedom"--a group whose "parent organization" was once called "a gathering place for racists and anti-Semites" by the Anti-Defamation League. It's also why liberal journalists are complaining that Todd Palin belonged to a political party that wanted Alaska to secede from the union--and that his wife once attended "a sermon by the founder of Jews for Jesus, who argued that the Palestinian terrorist acts against Israel were God's 'judgment' on the Jews because they hadn't accepted Jesus." Finally, it's why the Obama campaign released a 13-minute documentary about McCain's involvement in the "Keating Five" scandal earlier this afternoon.

Does today's tit-for-tat represent "a new kind of politics"? Hardly. I tend to think--like most swing voters I've met--that these "guilt by association" attacks are idiotic. And Obama's Keating onslaught is particularly iffy, given that the scandal happened 17 years ago and McCain acknowledged misjudgment. That said, Chicago's aggressive posture ensures that every voter who hears about Ayers will also hear about the Alaska Independence Party. Same goes for Wright and Keating. Ultimately, if McCain can't convince swing voters that Obama is substantially riskier and more "tainted" than he is--if his attacks elicit equally irrelevant (but equally unflattering) attacks from the Dems--it's hard to see how he'll benefit from baring his teeth.

Last month, atheist author Sam Harris and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson duked it out on this blog over the question of whether Sarah Palin is prepared for the presidency. Now, in the latest dead-tree NEWSWEEK, editor Jon Meacham and former Bush guru Karl Rove tackle a related question: What's the value of Palin's populism? I've excerpted the key parts of their essays below. Click through for the full read--and weigh in on the comments board.

Photos: (from left) J. Scott Applewhite / AP; Khue Bui for Newsweek

MEACHAM:  A key argument for Palin, in essence, is this: Washington and Wall Street are serving their own interests rather than those of the broad whole of the country, and the moment requires a vice president who will, Cincinnatus-like, help a new president come to the rescue. The problem with the argument is that Cincinnatus knew things. Palin sometimes seems an odd combination of Chauncey Gardiner from "Being There" and Marge from "Fargo." Is this an elitist point of view? Perhaps, though it seems only reasonable and patriotic to hold candidates for high office to high standards. Elitism in this sense is not about educational or class credentials, not about where you went to school or whether you use "summer" as a verb. It is, rather, about the pursuit of excellence no matter where you started out in life. Jackson, Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton were born to ordinary families, but they spent their lives doing extraordinary things, demonstrating an interest in, and a curiosity about, the world around them. This is much less evident in Palin's case...

We have had terrific presidents and vice presidents from humble backgrounds, and we have had terrible presidents and vice presidents from privileged ones. The unease with Palin is not class-based. It is empirically based. She is a rising political star, a young woman—she is only 44—who has done extraordinary things. It takes guts to offer oneself for election, and to serve. It is far easier to throw spitballs from the stands than it is to seek and hold office. She is a governor, and she has the courage to go into the arena. For that she should be honored and respected. If she were seeking a Senate seat, or being nominated for a cabinet post—secretary of energy, say, or interior—the conversation about her would be totally different. But she is not seeking a Senate seat, nor is she being nominated for a cabinet post, and so it is only prudent to ask whether she is in fact someone who should be president of the United States in the event of disaster. She may be ready in a year or two, but disaster does not coordinate its calendar with ours. Would we muddle through if Palin were to become president? Yes, we would, but it is worth asking whether we should have to.

ROVE: With respect, Jon misses the principal arguments for Sarah Palin. She is the governor of a state with an $11 billion operating budget, a $1.7 billion capital budget and nearly 29,000 employees; she's got more executive experience than any candidate for president or vice president this year. In Alaska she took on the state political establishment, the incumbent Republican governor and the oil companies. She's a rising star who accentuates John McCain's maverick strengths and a "hockey mom" who has developed a powerful tie to ordinary voters. That link isn't itself an argument for Palin. But being able to connect with, and inspire, the public is an asset —not a liability. As for Jon's argument against "everyday Americans" as political leaders, many great presidents have been more average than elitist. Ronald Reagan, from Eureka College, was a far better leader than Woodrow Wilson, a former president of Princeton. Wilson would have given you 100 Supreme Court opinions he disagreed with, whether you wanted to listen or not. Barack Obama has also introduced Joe Biden
as a Joe Six-Pack, saying, "His family didn't have much money … sometimes moving in with the in-laws or working weekends to make ends meet." Biden himself rarely misses a chance to say, "I was an Irish Catholic kid from Scranton with a father who, like many of yours in tough economic times, fell on hard times." Both veep candidates are trying to portray themselves as ordinary folks.
 

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

ECONOMIC UNRESTS SHIFTS ELECTORAL BATTLEGROUNDS
(Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny, New York Times)
The turmoil on Wall Street and the weakening economy are changing the contours of the presidential campaign map, giving new force to Senator Barack Obama’s ambitious strategy to make incursions into Republican territory, while leading Senator John McCain to scale back his efforts to capture Democratic states. Mr. Obama has what both sides describe as serious efforts under way in at least nine states that voted for President Bush in 2004, including some that neither side thought would be on the table this close to Election Day. In a visible sign of the breadth of Mr. Obama’s aspirations, he is using North Carolina — a state that Mr. Bush won by 13 percentage points in 2004, and where Mr. Obama is now spending heavily on advertisements — as his base to prepare this weekend for the debate on Tuesday. By contrast, Mr. McCain is vigorously competing in just four states where Democrats won in 2004: Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, followed by Wisconsin and Minnesota. His decision last week to pull out of Michigan reflected in part the challenge that the declining economy has created for Republicans, given that they have held the White House for the last eight years. 

ONUS ON MCCAIN TO TURN PRESIDENTIAL RACE HIS WAY
(Liz Sidoti, Associated Press)
One month before Election Day, Barack Obama sits atop battleground polls in a shrinking playing field, the economic crisis is breaking his way and he has made progress toward winning the White House. The onus is on Republican John McCain to turn the race around under exceptionally challenging circumstances--and his options are limited. McCain's advisers say the Arizona senator will ramp up his attacks in the coming days with a tougher, more focused message describing "who Obama is," including questioning his character, "liberal" record and "too risky" proposals in advertising and appearances. Obama's advisers, in turn, say he will argue that McCain is unable to articulate an economic vision that's different from President Bush's. In a new push, the Illinois senator is calling McCain's health care plan "radical."

REGISTRATION GAINS FAVOR DEMOCRATS
(Alec MacGillis and Alice Crites, Washington Post)
As the deadline for voter registration arrives today in many states, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is poised to benefit from a wave of newcomers to the rolls in key states in numbers that far outweigh any gains made by Republicans. In the past year, the rolls have expanded by about 4 million voters in a dozen key states -- 11 Obama targets that were carried by George W. Bush in 2004 (Ohio, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico) plus Pennsylvania, the largest state carried by Sen. John F. Kerry that Sen. John McCain is targeting. In Florida, Democratic registration gains this year are more than double those made by Republicans; in Colorado and Nevada the ratio is 4 to 1, and in North Carolina it is 6 to 1. Even in states with nonpartisan registration, the trend is clear -- of the 310,000 new voters in Virginia, a disproportionate share live in Democratic strongholds. Republicans acknowledge the challenge but say Obama still has to prove he can get the new voters to the polls.

THE SPIRIT OF '76
(Stephen F. Hayes, Weekly Standard)
"As a general matter, we need to get this race back to being about Obama," says one senior adviser to McCain. A second agrees and points to Tuesday's debate as a key opportunity. "Part of what this debate is about, and the home stretch is about, is focusing the attention on Obama." It's a strategy that has worked before... Several McCain advisers believe their campaign should focus on two very similar questions for the final push of the campaign: Who is Barack Obama, and can he lead the country in these difficult times? The advisers say the campaign will work to remind voters of Obama's "corrupt" associations with Tony Rezko and with "the terrorist William Ayers." There has been no decision made as to whether the campaign will directly raise Obama's relationship to Reverend Jeremiah Wright. "Rezko and Ayers are clearly in bounds," says a top McCain adviser. "McCain has said he doesn't want to talk about Wright. If others do, then it's a topic of conversation and we can join that conversation."

IT'S OVER
(Howard Wolfson, New Republic)
Why won't the swiftboat tactics work this year?  Its easy to lose sight of it in the day to day coverage, but the collapse of Wall Street in the last weeks was a seminal event in the history of our nation and our politics. To put the crisis in perspective, Americans have lost a combined 1 trillion dollars in net worth in just the last four weeks alone.  Just as President Bush's failures in Iraq undermined his party's historic advantage on national security issues, the financial calamity has shown the ruinous implications of the Republican mania for deregulation and slavish devotion to totally unfettered markets.  Republicans and Democrats have been arguing over the proper role of government for a century. In 1980 voters sided