Who wants to be a multimillionaire? 

The Washington Wisenheimers seem to think John McCain won Saturday night's faith and compassion forum at Saddleback megachurch in Orange County, Calif. The reason, according to NBC political director Chuck Todd, was that even though Obama's answers were "thoughtful," he "seemed to want to explain himself too much and went out of his way not to offend folks who disagree with him." McCain, on the other hand, "decided he was talking to folks watching on TV." As a result, McCain delivered "direct," "snappy," "straightforward," "on message" responses that "allowed him to look commanding on that stage." In other words, while Obama meandered, McCain succeeded by using the interview as an delivery mechanism for crisp soundbites designed to "penetrate" our ADD cable culture.

Normally, we'd agree. But there's one thing that Chuck & Co. are forgetting: gaffe-o-nomics. The same media machine that rewards consultant-driven candidates for staying relentlessly on-message is apt to ignore a dozen well-crafted talking points in favor of a single, inconvenient slip of the candidate's tongue--especially when aided by a ruthless rival. And McCain--whose performance as a whole was solid, authentic and even affecting--had just such a slip Saturday night. Asked by Warren "at what point--give me a number, give me a specific number--[...]do you move from middle class to rich?", McCain replied "How about $5 million?" As in, $5 million a year--an annual income so astronomically high as to suggest that fewer than one tenth of one percent of U.S. households only 1.14 million (or one percent of) U.S. households* actually qualify as "rich" in McCain's economic universe. 

Or at least that's what the Obama camp wants us to believe. Signaling his intentions to tighten the "$5 million" quote around McCain's neck like some sort of gilded albatross, the Illinois senator ripped into the Republican this morning on the trail in Albuquerque, N.M., wondering if "he was joking" and cracking that by McCain's standards a $3 million yearly income must make you "middle class." It's easy to see why Obama latched on. If McCain doesn't believe that folks earning, say, $4 million a year are "rich," the thinking goes, than of course he'd be willing to, you know, give oil companies big tax breaks, cut taxes for the wealthiest one percent of the population and consult an adviser who recently claimed that America is a "nation of whiners" mired in a "mental recession." As Obama said in New Mexico today, "McCain’s skewed idea of wealth is reflected in his policies.” You can almost hear the advertisements--which would invariably link McCain's remark to his own status as a multimillionaire--now. $4 million a year. That's enough to buy seven houses. A private jet. And 7,692 pairs of black calfskin loafers by Ferragamo. But it's not enough, according to John McCain, to make you rich. Good thing the McCains rake in more than $6 million a year. Who's the real "elitist"?

The unfortunate thing is that while McCain did utter the phrase "how about $5 million," he meant it as a humorous brush-off--not a serious economic benchmark. After sidestepping Warren's question by claiming to define a wealthy person as someone with "a home, a good job [and] an education," McCain pivoted to his real response: that he doesn't want "to take any money from the rich" but rather "want[s] everybody to get rich" by cutting taxes and (supposedly) spurring economic growth. Reasonable people can disagree over McCain's economic proposals, of course, but it's impossible to ignore the fact that he only tossed in "$5 million"--a comically exaggerated sum--to say that drawing a specific line between the rich and the non-rich is irrelevant when you plan to cut taxes across the board. It was, in effect, a punchline. That's why Warren laughed. That's why the audience did the same. And that's why McCain followed up by saying "seriously" three times and reiterating that "the point I'm trying to make here... is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues."

Still, that doesn't make the remark any less dangerous. For his part, McCain realized right away that he'd made a mistake; "I'm sure that comment will be distorted," he said. He knows from experience. At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Jan. 3, a voter asked McCain whether he agreed with President Bush that U.S. troops might not leave Iraq for 50 years. His response? "Make it 100"--a number he later revised up to "1,000 years, or 10,000 years." The point, again, was to deflect what he considered to be a misguided line of questioning by delivering an exaggerated response. As numerous journalists have already explained, McCain believes that once casualties in Iraq drop to zero, we'll hand over combat duties and keep troops stationed there to help maintain stability (think South Korea)--and not that Americans troops should be hunting down insurgents on the post-apocalyptic horrorscape of the fertile crescent 10,000 years from now. But that didn't stop his opponents from characterizing him as a bloodthirsty warmonger bent on fighting until 12,008. As one VoteVets.org ad put it, "John McCain is OK with spending the next 1,000 years in Iraq."

Sadly, all's fair in love and politics, where a catchy soundbite swamps a nuanced argument every time. (Just ask John Kerry.) Given the importance of the economy this year--and Obama's desperate need for a rallying cry on what should be his strongest issue--we suspect that this won't be last we'll hear of McCain's $5 million. If the Democrats succeed, in fact, it'll be the only thing we remember about Saddleback come November. And no one will consider Obama the loser.  

*Fixed for accuracy. Thanks to reader sj1357 for pointing out my error. 

UPDATE, August 19, 9:00 a.m.: Well, that was fast. The DNC's latest web ad: