Ohio goes to Obama

Obama is walloping McCain in Ohio. It's no contest; they called it with less than 20% reporting.

McCain narrowly won the white vote in OH, but the black vote was 12% of the total and it was unanimous for Obama.

40% of the electorate were Democrats, only 30% were Republicans. In 2004 it was 35% Democrat, 40% Republican.

Obama killed on "cares about people like me" in OH, 78-19.

Bush won college grads in Ohio in 2004, Obama won them tonight.

Landslide or close race?

That's the question at this point. I define a blowout by a candidate winning with 350 electoral votes or more. There's about a 50-50 chance that it will be a blowout for Obama, according to the chart above from Five-Thirty-Eight.

Five-Thirty-Eight has also been contending that the race nationally needs to tighten five points for McCain to have a chance. There's been no movement in McCain's direction, however, and he's never been over 44% since the Ides of September, when some crazy bloggers were predicting a McCain blowout, but after which his campaign went south.

Something dramatic would have to happen for McCain to win now. But this is not impossible. The 2000 election featured a surprise release of Dubya's DUI right before election day, which had an impact on undecided voters. It seems less likely now, but there could be an international incident. The Bush administration has been very reckless in provoking Pakistan and Syria in recent days, bombing inside Pakistan and conducting a raid inside Syria, and a cynic could with a lot of justification say they were trying to provoke retaliation that could create such an incident.

An international crisis is the only thing that can save McCain now.

Why McCain will lose

I've been paying less than close attention to the race recently, as the dearth of recent blog posts indicates. My new job being very demanding, I haven't had much time at all the last ten days. But I almost feel like saying, what does it matter? What has really changed in the interim? Nothing. The state of election has remained the same. The national polls are identical. The Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and South Dakota polls are basically identical to what they were. Obama's gained a small lead in Florida. The Missouri, Virginia, and Pennsylvania polls have tightened in favor of McCain. The Georgia, Indiana, Arizona (!), and Arkansas polls have tightened in favor of Obama. The West Virginia polls are all over the place. The big story is Palin's wardrobe! Who cares about that. Of course she has to buy new clothes. What a non-story. You're really running out of anything substantive to talk about when this dominates two news cycles.

I'm not trying to justify my lack of blogging enthusiasm, but my forced hiatus seemingly at the worst time of the campaign has not missed anything major. The fundamental dynamics of the race has remained the same. So much in electoral politics comes down to the argument you make. McCain has been unable to make an effective argument as to why he should be president, and that's why he will lose on Tuesday.

The NYTimes a week ago had a cover story on the incarnations of McCain. There is such an eerie similarity to Hillary's loss to Obama (though she basically tied him). At first McCain was the experience candidate. The RNC are still running ads attacking Obama on this. They way the ad is phrased is "No Executive Experience." A telling phrasing -- Palin does have executive experience, so she's "most experienced" than Obama. But of course she's not. She's way more inexperienced than Obama.

The Palin pick has really blunted this line of attack. It can no longer be the main reason to elect McCain. However, that doesn't in itself mean the pick was a bad idea. Running on "experience" doesn't work anyway, in my view. If experience is so great, why is this the first time in nearly fifty years that a senator is going to be president? Senators have a greater claim to be presidential timber in terms of experience than anyone else. The reason is voters don't care about experience as a reason to elect someone. It is, rather, a threshold you have to pass in order to be a serious candidate. Once you're there, more experience doesn't help you. The problem is that Palin has issues with that threshold, making Obama look more experienced by contrast. So she has taken away this factor, but again this is not a decisive thing.

Abandoning "experience you can trust" McCain chose the "maverick change" tack with the Palin pick. That is, "Change is coming" but not such radical, untested change. Change that contrasts well with Obama's change. So McCain tried to run against Bush, against Washington, as Obama-lite. This was an interesting chess move. As I've detailed previously, it didn't work because McCain didn't take it seriously. If you are going to bring change, if you are going to be a fighter for the people against the establishment, then you can't be the candidate of bipartisanship. McCain wanted to have it both ways. He wanted to be the bipartisan candidate, which he could have laid claim to with some plausibility. He's bucked his own party to work with the other side, etc. etc. But being the candidate who plays nicely with the other children in the sandbox is a good strategy if you are ahead, and is at cross-purposes with a claim to be a maverick and shake things up.

In a highly-charged, visible race for the presidency, you have to be consistent. You can't be the candidate of change if you want to continue the policies that the party in power has implemented in the recent past. You can't be the candidate of bipartisanship if you are going to shake things up. You have to choose an argument, and hammer away at it. McCain didn't want to choose, and the bailout bill was his Rubicon. He refused to cross. I contend that he had to oppose the bill to win. The problem was that he couldn't. To oppose something with such an elite consensus behind it, a candidate has to be uber-persuasive and hyper-articulate. It is a very difficult thing to do. McCain didn't have it in him.

It is all well and good to say a candidate should do this or that, but in reality the positions a candidate can take on issues is pretty constrained. When everyone agrees that something is good or bad, you had better really know your stuff if you are going off into heterodoxy. The safe view is always the one that most people hold -- this is a democracy after all! McCain couldn't oppose the bailout because with the debates coming up, he could not persuasively make the case that the Washington consensus was wrong. So opposing the bailout was not even an option for him. I make this judgment based on McCain's debate performance. When the questions were on the economy, he would breathe heavily into the microphone, and his words sounded hesitant, like he didn't know what he was going to say next. When the questions were on foreign policy, the adrenaline went rushing through his body, and he spoke with passion and conviction. It's because he knows his stuff with foreign policy, but doesn't have a clue on economic issues.

So McCain was really in a bind. But it's not unexpected for him to be in a bind. Here is a candidate with a lot of liabilities. He's not a great speaker or stump campaigner. (In an appearance at my institution last week, McCain said "agree with Obama" rather than "disagree with Obama" and didn't catch his misstatement until he had finished a 3 minute diatribe -- it was embarrassing, and was played all over the local news.) His great asset was that he was a media darling, yet it's no contest who the media prefers when it comes to him or Obama, or even Hillary. His signature issue set is foreign policy, but he's identified with a disastrous decision on that front, the Iraq war. So it was never going to be easy for McCain. If the financial crisis had come after the debates, McCain might have been able to take a different path and oppose the bailout forcefully in sound bites and canned speeches. Not having to talk about it for extended periods of time from memory might have given him other options. But the way it played out put him in a tight spot.

Why should we elect McCain? That question has not been answered by the campaign. And that is why McCain will lose.

The Last Debate

(This is PotusBlog's 400th post!)

Obama came out strong, just like the first debate. McCain got the question first and started with a typical politician's response, not giving specifics and somewhat avoiding the question. The contrast with Obama, who seems sharp and direct by contrast. McCain followed up with a good personal appeal to a man Obama met on the campaign trail, and the Obama just took all the wind out of his sails with a quip that was actually funny (!), "Joe the Plummer's been watching Sen. McCain's ads." Got a small audience response--that's important, because all the studies show that audience reaction has a huge impact on TV viewership evaluation. McCain's joke, "We're talking about Joe the Plummer" when Obama mentioned Buffet, was just as funny but got no audience reaction. Obama's joke a little while later about Fox News also got a laugh, as did his joke a little past that saying "congrats" to McCain for the Cardinals beating the Cowboys. A pro-Obama audience it seems.

McCain came out with passion on taxes after his opening two salvos, and made up for lost ground, putting Obama on his heels. McCain had a great moment, looking Obama in the eyes and saying "I'm not President Bush. If you wanted to vote for President Bush you should have run four years ago." Oh yeah! Where was this passion in the last two debates? McCain should have done this from the beginning. The anger and passion makes him seem a lot more vigorous. The late night comedy shows have had a field day making fun of the McCain ticket, and McCain himself as old and doddering. As has been widely remarked, they don't know how to make fun of Obama. Call it the comedy gap. McCain showing controlled anger I think would mitigate this a little bit. But only a little.

"I give you tremendous credit for that" Obama on McCain's opposition to torture. Why do politicians phrase it this way? I think it would be better to say "You deserve tremendous credit for that."

McCain was passionate about negative ads, defending the people at his rallies, the relationship of Obama with Ayers and ACORN, putting Obama again on his heels. "I've roundly condemned" his despicable acts, Obama said. I think it would be more effective to look into the camera and say "I condemn them." But Obama ran through the whole story on Ayers and ACORN with a lawyer's closing argument that brought overwhelming evidence to bear that these are distractions that a desperate McCain is focusing on because he's got nothing else. I give the exchange to Obama.

Obama's a pro. Speaking well of Biden and not even mentioning SP when asked to compare the two. That's exactly right. McCain had a much more difficult time (of course). It's hard to listen to him refer to SP without SNL ringing in your ears. McCain flubbed his "breath of fresh air" line about her, and I had a jolly laugh about McCain accidentally saying "breasts." If he said that word on live TV in a debate in reference to Sarah Palin, his campaign would be over! Bush could nuke Iran and Russia and Pakistan on Nov. 3 and Obama'd still win!

Obama would smile when McCain spoke about him. That made it seem like McCain was distorting Obama's positions. It was a subtle "there you go again" message implicit there. I thought it was a very funny moment when an hour into the debate Obama looked into the camera and told Joe the Plumber that his fine for not providing health care would be "zero." McCain had said that "he'd sure like to know what that fine's gonna be." "Zero!" said McCain, and then went on a flurry of blinking that just looked so funny on the split screen.

McCain went over the line with Joe the Plumber. He should have dropped it. His obsession with J the P became a parody of itself. SNL must be so happy for this; their script writes itself on this one.

I thought the rest of the debate was super boring. I was bored. I thought McCain through everything and the kitchen sink at Obama, and the former did well, but Obama weathered the storm with aplomb. He is our next president; that's what I kept thinking watching his performance--not based on the polls as much as his performance.

McCain's Insane Tax Plan

I have to wonder what this campaign would be like if there were different nominees from the parties. I have to think that Hillary would be up on McCain as least as much as Obama, but would have moved into the lead even earlier. The real difference would be with the Republicans--had Mitt Romney been the nominee, the GOP would have been in much better shape to argue that their candidate is the one who understands the economy and could fix it.

Or would they? Romney lacks the popular touch even more than McCain. However, McCain's age works against him through the comparison with the youthful Obama, which would have been more neutralized with Romney. McCain doesn't exactly connect with voters--support for him in large part stems from unease with Obama. That same unease would've worked for Romney, but other than age I don't think Mitt would've been a much better nominee even given the financial mess.

And then there's the Huckster. The only other viable Republican nominee, Huckabee has what the other two lack, which is the common touch. It would have been a dangerous comparison with Obama from the Democratic perspective. Huckabee could have smeared him on the Rev. Wright stuff, and been able to bring it up again and again without really bringing it up.

I was prompted in the direction of these wild what-if speculations due to McCain's tax cut proposal yesterday. What a disaster. For a campaign that I had so much respect for strategy-wise prior to the Ides of September, their stock has rapidly declined in my mind. McCain should have opposed the bailout. This would have given him what he lacked and what he was vulnerable on--a populist appeal. He could have done it with conservative bona fides, since a lot of the GOP base opposed it.

The whole reason Palin was picked was precisely for an injection of the popular touch. But Palin, like McCain's strategy in the last four weeks, is a gimmick. All McCain's trickery has turned his campaign into a laughing stock. And now this--his response to the financial crisis is a capital gains tax! Unbelievable.

I don't care if it's right. I don't care if it is sound policy. This is not college ECON 202 class. This is a presidential campaign, and a capital gains tax cut does nothing for McCain's campaign. Nothing, but give Obama a gift complete with wrapping and a red bow. It fits the stereotype of McCain being out of touch, flailing around with his proposals, and in the tank with Bush big-business policies. That's a stereotype that McCain needed to work against, not comfortably slide into.

McCain had his chance on the economy to rally disaffected voters, and he chose the safe route. This is why he's down and will probably lose.

Obama and the Bradley Effect

One thing I've been thinking about recently as Obama has increased his lead on McCain is whether a predicted blowout for the Dems will turn into Obama scraping by, as a small percentage of white voters change their minds last minute. Besides the fact that an important segment of the electorate makes up its mind last minute. The late deciders swung against Bush in 2000, costing him the popular vote, partly due to the DUI story that broke right before election day. They split evenly in '04, which sunk Kerry. What will they do now? Will they balk at electing our nation's first black president? There's of course the racist angle. There's also the lack of experience angle, which I have always defended as legitimate. McCain is not doing a very good job right now of portraying Obama as inexperienced. But there's still some time left, the late deciders haven't decided, and events could swing McCain's way. Obama could be peaking right now. The only good time to peak is right before the election. This campaign isn't over yet, and I continue to obsess about the possibility of an October surprise of an attack on Iran. McCain's numbers go up in a foreign policy crisis.

Concerning the Bradley Effect, Andrew Hacker writes:

Some people who are telling pollsters they're for Obama could actually be lying. Such behavior has been called the "Bradley Effect ," after Tom Bradley, a black mayor of Los Angeles who lost his bid to be California's governor back in 1982. While every poll showed him leading his white opponent, that isn't how the final tally turned out. Things haven't been far different in some other elections involving black candidates. In 1989, David Dinkins was eighteen points ahead in the polls for New York's mayoral election, but ended up winning by only a two-point edge. The same year, Douglas Wilder was projected to win Virginia's governorship by nine points, but squeaked in with one half of one percent of the popular vote. Nor are examples only from the past. In Michigan in 2006, the final polls forecast that the proposal to ban affirmative action would narrowly prevail by 51 percent. In fact, it handily passed with 58 percent. That's a Bradley gap of seven points, which isn't trivial. Since 1968, the Democratic Party has not been able to muster a majority of white Americans. Al Gore fell twelve percentage points behind among white voters in 2000, and John Kerry had a seventeen-point gap four years later.

McCain hates Obama

We've seen it before.  Hillary (and Bill) Clinton's rage and disbelief over Barack Obama's candidacy did them no favors in the primaries.  Rule Number 1 is "don't underestimate your opponent," and the Clintons were a textbook example.  You need to hate your opponent in any contest (e.g., sports) in order to get motivated to beat them, but it has to be that right mixture of hatred, fear, and contempt.  If one of those elements is out of whack, then there's trouble.

McCain seems to be falling into the trap of too much contempt.  "How can this young'un be on the same stage with me?  With me?" McCain seems almost to be asking himself.  And it comes out in various ways.  Byron York has the rundown on it today.  McCain was trying to be funny in his "that one" comment in the debate.  McCain really doesn't have that good of a sense of humor.  His contempt for Obama seeped out a little there.  After the debate he *looked* like he didn't want to shake Obama's hand.  So what if he had already?  He looked like he didn't on TV.  A Freudian slip, in view of all the voters.  

This really was the only interesting thing in a boring debate.  Obama's line in these debates has been "He's misrepresenting my positions."  McCain's contempt seems to validate this to people.

The Second Debate

Obama did a good job at the beginning on the economy. McCain just looked like he didn't have a clue. He looked old. He breathed heavily into the mic. He stressed energy independence as a economic solution, which didn't strike a chord. He stressed $700B going overseas for oil, which reminded people of the total for the bailout. Obama said $700B when he was talking about what we've spent on Iraq; also reminiscent of the bailout.

McCain's problem is that he wants to steal Obama's message of a new politics, yet he has to attack Obama, which looks like the old politics. Obama had this great line early saying "Look, you don't want to hear politicians attack each other" as he pivoted to what he was proposing. I thought he really connected with the young man who asked the question. McCain talked about bipartisan Reagan and Tip O'Neil in one breath, and in the very next sentence he mentioned how he himself "wasn't very popular sometimes in his own party, much less the other." It's a fundamentally flawed argument.

"What sacrifices would you ask for?" The first internet question. McCain repeated lines about cutting programs, without giving any (unpopular) specifics. Obama first spoke about Bush saying "Go out and shop" after 9/11. Good start. He then started talking about government programs--not personal enough. Then he started talking about people using less energy in their own lives...but then related it back to government giving incentives. I thought that could have been more powerful. Too Jimmy Carterish? But the people liked Carter's "malaise" speech--it was only the cynical media who turned on him and turned the speech into a laughingstock. I thought Obama missed a real opportunity to issue a politically risky call to individual Americans to share the burden of consuming less. A lot of talk about "sharing the burden" but I thought it could have been even more specific. (But that means more risky.) McCain hit Obama on looking to the government too much on health care. I think McCain could have pressed this aspect a lot more.

Obama's tone was good, and I'm continually impressed with how he doesn't say "uh" anymore. McCain said "my friends" a ton, and his "s's" whistled into the microphone.

I thought Obama won the "what's your priority" question. He said, "We need to prioritize" while McCain said "We can do all of them." Bush 43's political genius at the beginning of his first term was to portray himself, at least, as someone willing to prioritize. People roll their eyes when politicians dodge this type of question. McCain knew he was beat and returned to it in a follow-up that I thought smacked of desperation.

McCain continues to be the strongest when he preaches his record against earmarks. Obama is the weakest when he reminds everyone that McCain is part of the problem in Washington in the last 26 years--this only reminds people that Obama is the newbie.

When talking about health care insurance companies Obama bashed Delaware--interesting given his choice of running mate!

When McCain started talking about foreign policy he got animated and was at his best. The contrast with his speech when he's speaking about the economy is marked. McCain said, "The United States of America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world." More overweening American exceptionalism you cannot find--not that the nation is blessed by God in his providence, but rather takes the place of God's providence. He had said at the beginning of the debate that the economic problem was caused by Washington and greed on Wall Street.

McCain had more malapropisms. McCain: "Let's keep never forget the trouble we're in today." McCain: We have to make sure we're not "exacerbating our reputation."

I thought Tom Brokaw was obnoxious from beginning to end. He sniped and snarked, was schoolmarmish and a know-it-all, yet at the end he didn't even know what to say without the teleprompter.

Consensus: McCain missed the boat

I agree with the Hammer over at the Washington Post--McCain is throwing too many hail marys, making Obama look cool and stable.

I've always argued that he had to throw hail marys.  The real problem is not that he's doing so, it's that the last one fumbled badly.  The gimmicky "let's-suspend-the-campaign" when he had no intentions of following through on skipping the debate was really bad.  The fill-in for Rush Limbaugh today was bemoaning the chance McCain had to rally voters for change by opposing his party's capitol hill leadership and taking a very popular position opposing the bailout.  

I advised McCain's team to oppose the bailout on 9/22.  I guess they aren't reading this blog, or else they felt that the downside I listed--that McCain couldn't pull it off because he doesn't know enough about economic issues--certified the decision not to oppose the plan.  

Yet it is becoming more and more clear that this might be *the* turning point in the campaign.  McCain had a shot, and he blew it.  Airball.  He is sinking in the polls.  On the ground in Ohio people have the sense that the tide has turned.  A former White House employee admitted to me over the weekend that McCain missed a big opportunity.  

Palin in the debate was all about stealing the change message.  Effective--if it had been backed up with substance.  Palin didn't provide substance.  McCain could have provided it for her, by taking a popular position sharply divergent from Obama's on such a visible issue.  

McCain shot an airball with time running out.  There's still time left, but it starting to look like desperation-ball for the Republicans.  

Post-debate reflections

True to this blog's motto, "We're only two or three news cycles behind," I want to give some post-debate reflections.

This was probably the most important debate, as long as there's no major fumbles in the next two (as there was not in this one).  The first thing of note is that the debate was indeed a draw, as the commentators have stated.  And the reason is that the middle of the debate was even, and was bookended by two bad moments for each candidate--Obama looked so sharp at the beginning while McCain was embarrassingly bad, and Obama was hammered by McCain at the end of the debate.

So if voters are making up their mind based on actually watching the thing, it really matters whether you tuned in ten minutes late and watched until the end, or whether you caught the beginning of the debate and broke off without seeing the end.  Like the very first TV debate between Nixon and Kennedy (which resulted in different winners depending on whether people listened to the debate or watched it on TV), these two scenarios would result in vastly different impressions of who won.

If you watched the whole thing, you thought it was a draw.  I agree with conventional wisdom that a draw favors Obama.  I think Obama won.  He proved he can be president.  The VP debate this week will validate Obama's choice of Biden, humilitate McCain's choice of Palin, and last Friday's debate will be but a memory.

SNL lampooned McCain the night after the debate for his gimmicks.  McCain can get away with gimmicks because he is such a substantive candidate, has a long record.  He has capital to spend on this score, and I think he should spend it.  I thought he should have opposed the bailout--that would have been a really substantive way to shake up the race, instead of a gimmicky way, but he decided to play it safe.  That won't win him the election.  The bailout will probably pass today, in which case McCain could have his cake and eat it too--posturing in a popular way (no one likes the bailout) while not taking the blame for it not passing.  Of course, would it have passed if he opposed it?  Perhaps not.  And what the bailout is doing is delaying the (inevitable) economic pain that has to come sooner or later.  You don't run for president nowadays talking about how short-term pain is good.  You run by promising everyone the world.

McCain really came into his own last night.  He doesn't think much of Obama, but managed to conceal his contempt.  He started out so flat, it was just terrible.  But he gained his footing when he started talking with passion about earmarks.  That passion never left him.  It made him seem really genuine, in contrast to his gimmicky campaign.  If Palin has any chance against Biden it's to seem genuine as opposed to Biden's slick Washington mountebank demeanor.  

But Obama won the debate.  His flubs at the end were even excusable, I thought.  McCain was snearing in his face, and Obama can seem like he has a legit beef that his positions are misrepresented.  His line the next day was a powerful one: "John McCain had a lot to say about me in the debate, and not much at all to say about you.  He never even mentioned 'the middle class' once."

Likewise, McCain's flubs at the beginning were excusable, in the sense that he was really sharp the whole rest of the debate, which is tough for a 72-year-old in the bright light standing for 90 minutes.  

Obama won because he did exactly what he had to do.  Unlike McCain, Obama can't resort to gimmicks.  He can't go after McCain passionately.  He can't get down and dirty.  The reason is the bubba vote--a young black upstart attacking an American hero would only produce backlash.  He had to show that he's up for the job, presidential.  He had to get people comfortable with him as a leader.  He did that.  

I think he should have mentioned his Christianity and how it guides him in life.  Why doesn't he do this?  America doesn't elect secular candidates, or at least hasn't yet.  Change might be around the horizon, but why risk it?  Obama could have boxed in McCain, who would sound too much like Bush with his belligerent attitude to every major foreign policy problem, mixing in any God-speak.  Obama's married with two kids, McCain ruthlessly cheated on and then divorced his  wife, who was faithful to him while he was a POW and remains faithful to him to this day, in order to wed a young heiress.  But there's one reason why Obama can't do this: it conjures up Wright, and there's no way Obama wants that.  He's better off with the whole thing being a forgotten piece of ancient history.  

Neither candidate has much of a sense of humor, and McCain's jokes fell flat, but he did have two moments when he really flummoxed Obama with humor--the line about not being able to hear Obama, and the imaginery sit-down with Ahmadinejad.  

It's not as bad as you think for McCain

I know it's an overstatement. But John McCain's attempt to shake up the race, which I praised to the skies yesterday, has failed (despite Fox's reporting that McCain's #s are up as a result of the suspension). There's no deal on the bailout. McCain didn't show decisive leadership, a meeting with the pres and the two pres wannabes devolved into a shouting match, and McCain blinked on the debate. So the debate's going to happen. My wife's reaction was to roll her eyes and condemn McCain--I think that's telling.

Axelrod is saying that McCain exploited the economy for political purposes, and the Huckster is saying that McCain's move was a "Big mistake...You can't just say, 'World, stop for a moment. I'm going to cancel everything.'" The Democratic line is that McCain is "injecting presidential politics" into the issue. It's appealing, no matter Rush Limbaugh's rants about Obama's failure at the meeting with Bush, McCain and co.

So McCain is skulking with his tail between his legs to the debate, and Obama has an edge going in. Or does he? I still firmly believe that McCain has to continually shake up the race. There are risks to every move of this type he makes, but he doesn't have a choice.

And the proofs still in the pudding. What's going to happen tonight? Everything is riding on it. The whole presidency. More people will watch this debate than the other two. There's enormous anticipation, and it comes right smack dab in the middle of an economic crisis.

What's the expectations game for McCain? I always thought that McCain would debate, and never considered that he would back out. "He's playing the expectations game," I thought. If he goes unwillingly to the debate, the expectations will be lower. And there's an argument here. If McCain hadn't pulled this stunt, what would everyone be talking about? I'll tell you: they'll be talking about the debate on foreign policy, and how that's McCain's specialty, and how he should blow Obama out of the water, and yet, wow, isn't it kind of irrelevant to what is the pressing concern right now? That's what the chatterheads would say. Instead, the talking points are different. Still not favorable to McCain, but doesn't it take some of the pressure off of him? There is a setup for McCain to do well. He could still lose, or he could still win with the pundits and lose with the people, that's very possible. But at least the setup isn't: an out-of-touch rich Washington insider gets ready to debate foreign policy, ignoring the biggest financial crisis of a generation.

You have to look at the opportunity cost with campaign moves like this.

McCain's brilliant gambit

John McCain will probably lose this election. But even if he does, his top adviser Steve Schmidt should go down in the pantheon of legendary political consultants.

So far, the McCain campaign has done two things I have found to be brilliant.

1. The Celebrity ad.

2. The Palin pick (risky, but necessary).

Add to that now a third. Is it a mess in the McCain campaign? I got this email:

Could McCain possibly do anything else to reduce his chance in November? Backing out of the first debate (or trying to) makes him look weak and unprepared, and I assume that you've heard about the fiasco with canceling Letterman (supposedly because he had to leave for the airport), being interviewed by Katie Couric when he should have been on Letterman, and Letterman broadcasting part of the Couric interview. David offered to "drive him to the airport" since apparently he must have been running late! What a mess.

The Letterman thing was a fiasco. But who watches Letterman? Young people, who will vote for Obama anyway. The Letterman thing was bad. It really made McCain seem like he's a faker.

And of course he is. This whole thing about "suspending his campaign" is a gimmick (like Palin). But the reason it's all brilliant is that McCain needs gimmicks. His poll numbers are sliding. The economy mess only helps Obama. He has to shake things up--he just has to.

He is doing so by, again, stealing Obama's message of "new politics." First he stole "change" at the convention. Now he's going after Obama's post-partisanship message. He has a claim to it with the maverick image, so he can pull it off.

The Letterman fiasco is a bad piece of scheduling perhaps. But McCain will be forgiven by voters. Letterman is a comedian. Going on a comedy show is not the first priority of the day in a crisis. Obama canceled SNL because of a hurricane (and it stunk as a result). At least Couric is a journalist.

People can understand that the rules change in a crisis. That's what gives this move of McCain's plausibility as something other than the gimmick that it is. Yes, shouldn't we abandon partisan politics and all work together in a crisis? McCain is seizing the initiative, which is exactly what he needed to do.

This move by McCain is another brilliant stroke by a campaign that understands that it cannot coast into the White House. It has to continue to shake things up, again and again, in order just to stay even with Obama, and have a chance to win in a squeaker.

Can Obama lose Appalachia and win the Presidency?

It's a question that's been on my mind for over a month.  Can Obama just cede all of Appalachia and still pull off a victory?  He ran so weak there in the primaries, as Jay Cost has documented with the first map above.  Appalachia was an ocean of blue--blue for Hillary Clinton.  

What if Obama loses all of Appalachia in the general election?  That is to say, every state with a portion of the region in it, within reason (i.e., excluding NY and Maryland).  This would include the swing states of Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania.  What if McCain wins all three of these, West Virginia, and the southern states he'll win anyway?

This scenario, based on the polling we have today, would give McCain 243 and Obama 219 electoral votes.  There would be 7 swing states left outstanding.  Obama could win 6 out of the 7 and still lose--if McCain won Florida.  So McCain would be pretty close to winning in this scenario; he'd only have to win Florida to clinch it.  Or he could lose Florida, but still win Indiana (Bush won in 04), Nevada (Bush won in 04), Colorado (Bush won in 04), and New Hampshire (Bush lost in 04 by a paltry 9,000 votes).  If McCain picked off Minnesota, where the race has tightened over the summer and is currently tied, and the Dems in the state might be dragged down by Al Franken's Senate candidacy, then he's in even better shape because he could then win with just Indiana and Colorado, or Indiana, New Hampshire, and Nevada.  

Hillary Clinton was a tougher candidate for electoral college reasons.  But so much can change.  I still think Obama could win in a blowout.  McCain cannot win in a blowout.  But I would not be surprised with Obama wining in a blowout.  He is a realigning candidate, which we might see in 2012 even more than now.  But now I'm getting way ahead of myself.  

The race in Ohio

I got polled last Sunday (at 3pm) by Rasmussen.  I live in the Ohio's swing-district-of-all-swing districts, so it was thrilling to think that my opinion would actually be listed to.  A few interesting things about the poll.  It was a robo-poll which moved along at a fair clip.  There were a few demographic questions in the middle of the poll.  It gave the option to vote for Barr, Nader, and McKinney.  The most interesting question was, "If you had to make the toughest decision of your life, who would you ask, Barack Obama or John McCain?"  

In the local paper here, the fact that McCain was up in a poll (not the Rasumussen one) was front page news.  Of course, McCain was not really up in the poll--he had 48, Obama 42, but the margin of error was 3.3% so it's a statistical tie.  

Obama is having difficulty in Ohio.  It's the same old story--people feel uncomfortable with him waltzing in and taking over the country.  And why shouldn't they?  Obama's inexperienced.  He's not tried and true.  There are plenty of good reasons to be skeptical of Obama without being racist.  There was a forum last week in West Virginia blaming racists there for not supporting Obama.  I heard the same opinion from a WV native at APSA in Boston.  I said recently here that there was no way that Obama could win West Virginia; however, he's been creeping up on McCain in the polls, to the point where they're basically tied in the Mountain State.  

In Ohio, there was an Obama volunteer who had a hilarious venting in the letters to the editor section of my local Sunday paper.  It was well-reasoned, even eloquent, if it wasn't so sarcastic.  The lady was choking on her own disbelief that people would support McCain/Palin.  It was an interesting snippet of the race, because this lady obviously has knocked on a lot of doors, or made a lot of phone calls, or both, and has heard the same thing over and over--that people relate to McCain (and especially Palin) in a way they don't with Obama.  

That's why money is not so much a factor in this race.  Obama might raise more, and will continue to be able to raise more while McCain's finished (he's taken his $84 million of government money and can no longer accept private donations), but both have enough money to compete, and that's all that matters.  Obama poured money into Ohio and PA in the primaries, and he got creamed by Hillary.  Money is not the answer.  It pays for legions of enthusiastic volunteers to become disillusioned and crabbed like the lady who had to vent in public about how stupid the people are who she's trying to pursuade to vote for Obama.  

McCain needs to oppose the bailout

Reading through the NYT today, it became clear to me that John McCain needs to oppose this huge bailout.  

First of all is the front page story, "2 Candidates Back Bailout, With Caveats."  It's a misleading title.  Read the story, and it says McCain could back the bailout.  It never says he does.  So he's leaving his options open.  The theme of the article as far as McCain is concerned (based on a phone interview with him) is that he's trying to appear bipartisan.  He's doing that in other ways--promising to make the WH less political, saying he'd appoint Andrew Cuomo to be SEC chair.

Yet McCain is also sounding more populist.  He has to.  The convention featured the rollout of McCain's message: "Change you can trust."  A little change, not too much, not "Change you can believe in."  It's a brilliant strategy.  If your opponent has a popular message, you need to steal it, or lose.  McCain wants to win with this strategy.

The strategy requires that he oppose the bailout.  I base this on my conviction that McCain needs to make bold gambles to win.  He can't coast into the White House.  Only by making bold gambles will he put Obama on his heels, outside his comfort zone.  If Obama makes this a race on personality and telegenicity, which he did with Hillary by blurring any distinction between their positions, and is trying to do with McCain, he'll win.  McCain can't let that happen.  He needs bold moves.  Palin was a bold move, and it seems to be working out so far.  But that's not enough, as I've argued.

William Kristol's column today in the NYT clinched it for me.  Here you have a neocon agreeing with Paul Krugman across the page.  There are a lot of reasons why a massive bailout is a bad idea.  The reason why it might be a good idea is simply that: "It might work."  But what if it doesn't?  McCain could draw out the consequences of that.  He could show he's a maverick by opposing the Bush administration.  He might be able to appeal to some independent voters who are dissatisfied with a bailout as a solution.  He can appeal to small-government conservatives who think massively expanding the size of government is a bad idea.  And perhaps most of all, he can appeal to ordinary people with populist rhetoric that incenses the Wall Street Journal editorial board.  But that's exactly the right crowd to incense.

Making this move might shift the focus off of McCain's ties to the vested interests he would otherwise be seen to be tied to.  A damning article on his advisor's ties to Fannie and Freddie is on page 18 of the NYT.  Take the attention off this, take the initiative, and put Obama on his heels by opposing the bailout--that's what McCain needs to do.  What would Obama's response be?  I think it would put him in a quandary.  Supporting Bush when even McCain isn't?  That would get Obama clobbered, I think.  Yet Obama would clearly like to play things cautiously and bipartisanly, and rely on his own charm and eloquence rather than policy differences to carry the day.  He'd have to oppose the Democratic Congress, if the latter decides to pass the thing.

Of course, what's inhibiting McCain from doing this really is his total lack of understanding of what's happening.  He doesn't have the vocabulary and knowledge to argue the case effectively, and that's a prerequisite.  

Yet one could argue that Palin doesn't have the vocabulary and knowledge to take on Biden in a debate, and yet McCain picked her anyway.  The presidential race is not for the faint of heart.  I say, go in there and get your hands dirty arguing for the common man.  If you slip up, you'll be forgiven more readily than if you were arguing for the bailout of the rich--that's the same way with Palin, as she'll be forgiven more readily for her faults because she's an "ordinary person."

It's still Obama's race

A lot has happened in the presidential race to reflect upon.  And then again, not a whole lot.  The dynamics of the race still favor Obama.  Yet I would agree with a headline I saw two months ago, that it's Obama's race to win, not Obama's race to lose.  

First of all we can assess the conventions from a distance now.  The Democrats had a good convention.  The Republicans had a spectacular convention.  Obama received a bump, but the Republicans quickly neutralized it with the Palin pick the Friday after, and a solid convention that highlighted their VP pick.  McCain took his first lead in the polls since the head-to-head with Obama was secured in June.  

You can see how the race has looked from the graphs above.  First is the intrade price for McCain.  This is driven by a market consisting of people who are putting their money where their mouth is, picking McCain or Obama to win.  Only very recently has McCain been given over a 50% chance by this market.  

After the Palin pick and the Republican convention, Democrats were all in a tizzy.  Glum.  Doom and gloom.  The Palin picked worked on so many levels.  First of all is the "regular person" effect.  McCain is a longtime senator married to a rich heiress--he's more like John Kerry than Joe Sixpack.  Palin gives him the regular-person feel, which they can use against Obama, portraying him as an elitist.  It really was so remarkable, and was remarked upon ad nauseum, that Obama did not get a bump from his overseas trip.  His polls did not nudge.  Not a bit.  In fact he actually lost ground to McCain, as can be best seen in the supertracker poll aggregation graph (from fivethirtyeight.com), and also in McCain's rise in the intrade graph.  All the Obama team's hard work down the crapper, with one McCain Paris Hilton ad.  That ad has over 2 million views now on YouTube.  

Secondly, Palin fires up the base of the party.  They are drooling about getting one of their own in power, grooming her for the future from Mass. Av.  She is such an attractive politician, and the effect she has on conservatives is similar to the effect Obama has on liberals--finally we have someone who can represent our views and look good on TV doing it, without bringing up the baggage of the past (Clinton, Bush).  

Third, Palin appeals to a key demographic--married voters in the midwest.  Palin sounds exactly like a Wisconsin hockey mom.  This helps McCain in Minnesota, a key swing state in that it's the only one McCain really has the ability to take from Obama.  As Jay Cost has noted, it was winning the demographic of white women that made the difference for the GOP from losing in '96 to winning in '00 and '04.  

So Palin was a great pick.  She just has to look poised on TV from now until the election, as Jay Cost has also noted.  That's doable.  

However, I stand by my early analysis of Palin.  As we go along, Palin will lose some of her star appeal.  She will begin to wear more thin.  Attention will be diverted to other things.  

Democrats should not panick.  Even already in this past week there has been a rebounding in the polls for Obama, who is now barely up.  Democrats should ask themselves this question: did they honestly think that McCain would never be up in the polls against their man?  McCain had a great convention and a great VP pick, and he benefited from that.  But he will need more than that.  He will need Obama to fail to close the deal with Americans.  If Obama stumbles, McCain will win.  If Obama does not stumble, but fails to close the deal, McCain could back into the White House just like he won the GOP primary by a whisker.  

And that was the problem with the Democratic convention.  It did not close the deal with the American electorate.  I had one big problem with the convention: it did not give us a reason to vote for Obama.  Voting is about emotion, but not just the emotion of an indefinite mood.  Emotions are tied to explicable reasons.  There are reasons you feel angry or hopeful or pensive.  Campaigns need to conjure them up.  Playing not to lose, in sports as in politics, means you will lose 95% of the time.  The Republicans are too good for Obama to try to coast to victory.  Plus Republicans have a natural presidential majority--Democrats haven't won a majority of the votes cast for president in the last 30 years.  

The Democratic convention did not go after McCain enough.  It simply didn't.  It seemed like all the "new politics" bs was being taken seriously.  I've had some conversations with the Obama organizer in my county (I live in Ohio's swing district par excellance--the middle of the Democratic "C" in the eastern part of the state), and it was almost worrisome how he took the "new politics" line so seriously, and indeed seemed to be already making excuses as to why Obama would lose the state!  The Republicans had no qualms about going on the attack.  

Obama did better in his speech at the convention, and he's starting to go on the attack now.   There's plenty to attack.  One of the pitfalls of having a long voting record is there's plenty of things to attack.  From Bill Press: 

In 2000, McCain supported legislation authored by Sen. Phil Gramm that forbade federal agencies from regulating financial derivatives that greased the skids for passing along risky mortgage-backed securities to investors. Today we’re suffering the consequences.Gramm’s legislation was the key. Without it, AIG could never have veered from the solid ground of life insurance onto the shaky ground of sub-prime mortgages. And John McCain championed that legislation.

The changing economic situation clearly benefits Obama.  It reminds everyone of the failures and lies and mismanagement of the Bush administration.  Bad news on the ins watch will almos always help the outs.  But it has to be utilized.  From David Sirota:

Until this week, Obama largely avoided the contrasting FDR-style populism the nation wants and the moment demands.

For example, instead of endorsing forceful re-regulation months ago when the financial meltdown commenced, Obama responded with a vague white paper that not only offered few hard-hitting prescriptions, but denigrated key Depression-era regulations.

Likewise, despite slipping in the industrial heartland, Obama has muted his criticism of NAFTA. Indeed, one Obama adviser last week called trade only "an issue of symbolic importance." 

McCain playing it safe

RCP linked to a great piece by Rocky Mountain News this morning on McCain's speech.  Here's the best parts:

I've known for a while that I missed the real John McCain - the one who didn't care what anyone else thought - but I didn't know we'd get the John McCain who would, on the night he accepted the long-sought nomination of his party, not seem to care if anyone thought at all.

[T]there he was - standing where he must have thought he'd never be standing - and basically telling everyone to calm down.

[T]here were no new ideas. There wasn't even a theme, unless it was that McCain favored victory in Iraq. (You can start the USA chant anytime.)

This is one thing you never thought you'd say about McCain, but in this speech, it was as if he simply wanted to make the case that he was the safe vote. And in this campaign season in which nothing seems safe, where nothing is typical, where nothing is foretold and little is even foreseen, it's hard to see how playing it safe (see, for example: Obama's pick of Joe Biden) is the best strategy.

I disagree with disparaging the Biden pick, but agree with everything else.  I've been trying to put my finger exactly on what was so wrong about the speech last night.  McCain was playing it safe--this is the best description.  But he can't!  That's why Palin was a good pick, or at least seems so at this point.  McCain can't play it safe and win.  He has to go out on a limb.  Instead, he played it safe, and looked really old doing so.  

There should have been more red meat.  He should have told people why Obama would be dangerous.  He should have drawn sharp contrasts.  Most importantly, he should have led with his bio but then connected it with what that means for the future.  I just thought he looked way too much like Bob Dole.  

McCain's Speech a "C"

It's all USA all the time with McCain's speech.  "He's a true American."  "He loves his country."  I've never seen a more blatant wrapping of a party around the flag.  This is the alterization of Obama through a positive message.  The Republicans are very good at doing this--attacking through implication, never mentioning what they are even attacking.  

The protesters.  "Please don't pay attention to the ground noise and the static."  McCain smiled.  "Please...please...please...please."  Smile--"Americans want us to stop yelling at each other."  I thought that was a good line.  But then McCain looked really annoyed when the crowd started yelling "USA!" when he was trying to speak again.  It got under his skin.  

"She's worked with her hands and nose."  A funny flub: "She knows...", was what it was supposed to be.  He did it again with the "parents and students" line, when he had to start over and emphasize the right word to make the line make sense.  

"Change is coming."  McCain stole Obama's message.  Pretty good.  Palin allows him to do that.  

McCain's timing was off.  He couldn't decide when to stop for the applause.  Also, he kept looking down too at the end of each line.  Palin was much better at delivery, and Obama too.  McCain's speaking was really horrible.  It just doesn't come off as believable.  

He did show passion with fighting the big pork-barrel spenders in Congress.  He had kind of a Sister Souljah moment talking about how Republicans "lost the trust" of Americans.  "We're going to change that."  He delivered this line so flatly, however.  "He's really not a good speaker," said my wife.  "He strikes me as very insincere.  Let's get him off the stage and get Palin back up there."

There was a big monitor on the wall right under to the camera.  (I finally saw it in a wide shot.)  So McCain kept looking into the camera, just like Palin and Rudy last night.  It was much more effective than the Dems, because looking into the camera connects with TV viewers.  

McCain looked stiff walking out.  The podium was the right size--he didn't look like he was hiding behind it.  His arm disability was very distracting.  Brian Williams explained it last night, so we were looking for it subconsciously, and we never got over it.  

He talked about hearing the news of Pearl Harbor as a kid.  He's old!  A contrast with Obama, reminding me of Dole, of looking to the past.  He talked about "changing the way government does almost everything."  But this was belied by his look, which I always describe as doddering.  Does he have the energy to deliver all this new change?  He just didn't seem vigorous enough.  The night before he praised Palin on the stage and didn't know where she was and had to do a 360-degree turn, looking like an old grandpa who's not sure where people are when he's talking about them.  

The phrase "caretaker government" was ringing in my head as a description of what a McCain term would be.  All the talk of his biography--he's had a great life.  Now he should be put out to pasture?  I think the Republicans overdid it with his bio.  Why can't he be satisfied with the life he's led?  In other words, the question was not answered, why should he be president?  "Because he puts his country first."  That's alterization, not an answer.  The answer is "Because he's a maverick who will shake up Washington."  This answer was an afterthought, however.  It's clearly stealing Obama's message, but the important point is that it was actually McCain's bio that was front and center.  But loving your country and serving your country is not a reason why you should be president.  Then we would all be president!  His call to service was fine and all, but it did not answer the question, "So McCain serves a cause greater than himself, so what?  Why should he be president?"  It is an attack on Obama--he's only in it because he's power-hungry.  

At the end it was "fight this, fight that; stand up, stand up, stand up and fight."  I thought it fell flat.  My wife: "That was good."  I suppose it was.  What do I know?  

I give it a C.  Not bad, but certainly not good.  

Palin for President

A great night in primetime for the GOP.  Rudy was good and Palin was great.

Rudy at one point said, at the end of a litany of Democratic errors on the economy: "and sent jobs elsewhere."  What?  That's a criticism of Democrats?  I was scratching my head.  It seemed like Rudy was too--he stumbled and stuttered and paused going into his next line.  Did he add that?  Was it an accident?  It sure seemed like it at least.

Rudy's speech had so many red-meat attacks.  Why couldn't the Democrats do that?  As Pat Buchanan said last week, Rush Limbaugh attacks McCain a lot more harshly than the Dems.  I didn't understand it.  Paul Begala's line keeps ringing in my ears: "You can't go on the attack with a fist in your face."  

The Dems ignored the fact that the US went into a war on false pretenses, which is costing $400 million a day.  Why did they ignore that?  It baffles me.  Tie Iraq to the economy.  Obama did it in the primaries.  But it was ignored at the convention.  

"Can you imagine how they are going to shake up Washington?" said Rudy.  Wow--it's amazing how after 8 years of nearly completely solid Republican rule, that this line could be effective.  Yet it is, because a lot of (mainly married) people, a lot of Republicans, perceive the media, academic and government elites to be stacked against the values of ordinary families.  The elites vs. the common people--the protests of an EJ Dionne or The Nation notwithstanding (and apart from its truth)--is not something that inherently favors liberals.  A lot of people in the flyover states feel with good reason that rich urban liberals look at them with patronizing contempt.  So the Republicans can get away with running against the establishment, when for crying out loud they are the establishment.

One teleprompter or screen for the Republicans seemed like it was in front of the podium.  It didn't seem like the Dems did that.  Why didn't they?  Everything in Obama's speech was left, right, left, right, always looking at his face at an angle, never into the camera right at the TV audience.  It's clear why the GOP does it.  McCain's face doesn't look great at an angle!  But I think it's much more effective on TV to look the camera straight in the eye.  

Palin:  "I guess a small-town mayor is kind of like a community organizer, except that you have real responsibilities."  

The clinging to guns and religion comment was hammered hard by Rudy and even harder by Palin.  Some great lines.  "John McCain won't talk about small town folks one way in Scranton and another in San Francisco."

"Here is a man who's authored two memoirs [memoirs!] but not a single big law or reform in the Senate."

"Here is a man who talks about the wars America is fighting without ever using the word 'victory,' unless he's talking about his own campaign."

"There are some candidates who use 'change' to promote their careers.  And then there are some, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.  They are the ones who's names and images appear on monuments, not buttons and banners and self-designed presidential seals."

"The American presidency shouldn't just be a part of a journey of self-discovery."  

She used the phrase "our opponent" rather than "Sen. Obama" or "Obama."  That's classic political tactics going back to FDR.  

She played up her fighting the special interests in Alaska.  This is a big reason she was picked, because it really does fit with McCain's image.  

How many times did Palin slip up?  On Venezuela she clearly did, but smoothed it out semi-nicely.  I still have the slipups of Obama, in a home-run out-of-the-ballpark speech, he still slipped up a few times.  Biden slipped up.  It's inevitable.  But Palin was really remarkably smooth.  

SNL hasn't done a parody of Palin yet, but I can already hear Amy Poeler in a wig imitating her accent.  

She hammered Obama on taxes and growth of government to choruses of boos.  Relating it back to her family members who own a small business.  Very good--relate it to a personal level.  Not something Obama's great at.  Clinton was brilliant at it, and he never got over 50%.  

Palin was able to mix up the speed of her speech with facility.  It keep the thing moving, and kept it interesting.  It never really lagged.  

Tom Moe was trotted out as the Lenny Skutnik of the speech.  

Social issues were never mentioned.  Smart.  The picture of that little Down syndrome baby was worth a thousand words.  Plus, you want to run away from your strength when your supporters are already aware of it, in order to court those who aren't supportive.  

Right after the convention coverage ended, the local news coverage began, and it talked about Obama's trip to my county.  The coverage was not good for Obama--the people interviewed seemed to think Obama was out of touch.  And then Obama messed up the name of the town, calling it "New Pennsylvania" instead of "New Philadelphia."  Not a great night for Obama, and a great night for Republicans.  

After Palin's speech, the question should be whether the GOP ticket shouldn't be reversed.  

Republican Convention Tuesday: Not Bad, Not Great

I'm watching the convention on network TV.  NBC messed up the feeds with President Bush's speech, such that his pauses for applause were batches of silly silence.  Really weird--Brian Williams gave a long explanation and apology.  But it was still really weird!  

Laura Bush tried to explain why her hubby couldn't get on a plane and come, the first time in 40 years that a sitting president didn't address his party's convention in person.  She didn't have an answer--it was awkward.  Plus Bush wasn't even in prime time--it was only clips that were replayed on the networks.  

What I caught of Thompson's speech was terrible.  Just terrible!  What a lousy speaker!  It's really remarkable that he could be that bad.  At the end he mentioned how McCain can't raise his hands over his head.  Interesting--the Republicans were too good to feature Dole's combat injury in 1996, but they're not above it now.  Also, it conjures up the image of Obama not saluting the flag--McCain can't, Obama won't.  

There was an ad in Ohio during the convention attacking Democrats.  Very effective.  At the end McCain is pictured and his voice approves the message.  Will voters hold the negativity against him?  No way.  Negative ads like that one ("The Democrats will bring you unbalanced budgets and higher taxes")  work.  Nobody likes the Democrats in Congress.  Even the hard-core Dems are mad, because the '06 election was about the war and Congress did nothing to end it.  

The signs in the hall are "Country First."  Lieberman said, "I'm here because country matters more than party."  The message is obvious: Obama is not really about country first.  This works on two levels.  The first is alterization--he's not really a true American, since true American's always put their country first.  The second is about Obama's meteoric rise to promenance--he's about "me" first and country second.  Brilliant!  If he was about country first, he would pay his dues, put in his time, and wait for his turn.  But he elbowed his way to the front, knocking over a woman to be first in line.  That's not someone you want as your leader, since he won't put the real common good of the organization first, but will always be thinking about his own prospects and perhaps abandoning everyone when a higher opportunity awaits.  I've already heard a joke somewhere about Obama running for President of the World his second year into office.  

The troops coming home in honor--Lieberman's statement.  Lots of cheers and USA!'s.  A great line, since it both conjures up ending the war and being able to forget about it without guilt, a twofer.  He spoke directly to Democrats and Independents towards the end, urging them to vote for McCain.  It was powerful stuff.  This is why they had Lieberman speak.