Going Rogue

I don't know quite what to make of the story that VP candidate Sarah Palin may be "going rogue" from her own running mate. At least, that's what CNN is reporting some McCain aides are saying. It seems like there's a couple of possibilities here, none of which paint a particularly rosy picture of what we're going to see over the next week.

The first possbility is that Palin actually is going rogue and is setting off on her own against the wishes of the McCain campaign. That would pretty much be a sign that the campaign was collapsing. Not terrible news if you're on the Democratic side of things, but it will make for an ugly week of infighting and potential nastiness before it's all over.

The other possibility is that she's not actually going rogue, but that the campaign is trying to set her up that way so that she can really go after Obama while providing a level of plausible deniability to McCain and his campaign. In that case we'll see an ugly week of fake infighting and nastiness before it's all over.

The upside of all this is that in eight days now, this campaign will be finished. After such a long season, it's kind of hard to believe that it will ever end. Depending on how this week goes it may feel even longer.

The Final Round

It's almost becoming a cliche, but last night's debate was pretty much exactly what I expected it to be. McCain came out significantly more aggressive than he had in the previous two debates. Obama did not rise to take the bait nor say anything that would torpedo his chances (i.e. "You're right! I am a terrorist!"). Given that, it's hard to see much of a change in the race stemming from last night's debate. I think that the dynamic of the last three weeks is pretty set in place at this point and it's just a matter of seeing how everything resolves itself.

That said, of course I think Obama won. That's the advantage of being right on the issues.

Also, a few points that I want to look at a little more. First, McCain tried a couple of times to paint Obama as an extremist. One of his positions put him in league with the extreme environmentalists. Another put him in the extreme pro-abortion camp. But let's look at those positions. Obama says that if we want to use nuclear energy, we need to make sure that it's safe. Apparently that's an extremist position. So a mainstream perspective is that it's okay to use unsafe nuclear technology? I'm not sure who is really advocating for that kind of approach. Same thing on abortion. Being concerned for the health and life of a mother is an extreme position? Maybe McCain and I use that word differently.

Speaking of viewing the world differently, did anyone else hear McCain say that the ACORN voter registration scandal might threaten the very fabric of our democracy? I forget the exact quote, but it was something along those lines. Again, really? The fabric of our democracy? I may be underestimating the problem this poses, but that's definitely overestimating it.

It was also fitting, I thought, that it wasn't until the last question of the last debate that someone thought to ask about education. That could be a metaphor for education's place in this campaign - an afterthought if we have time. In McCain's answer, he stuck to his line that choice and vouchers are the way to improve schools. That would be a fine claim if the evidence actually supported him. However, even the DC voucher system he was so in love with didn't work all that well. The kids who got the vouchers didn't do any better in school than the kids whose parents applied for the vouchers but were not accepted. That's not reform. That's sticking with a failing policy.

And that may be a metaphor for McCain's campaign and platform. He may call it reform, but it's just more of the same.

It Ain't Over ...

I think my alarm must not have gone on this morning because when I woke up it seemed like the election was over and Barack Obama had already won. Don't get me wrong. This is not an unpleasant thing to wake up to. Hopefully it's true. I just think we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves.

The facts as they stand are looking pretty good. According to Real Clear Politics, the electoral count isn't even going to be close. They have Obama six electoral votes away from winning without factoring in any of the toss-up states. Obama has done an excellent job appearing presidential and in-command at the debates and the main issues facing Americans seem to favor him right now.

Meanwhile, the punditocracy has lost their collective minds in proclaiming Obama the winner. Even Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review, is standing athwart history yelling "Obama looks like he's going to win!" When the National Review is buying into the momentum hype about the Democratic candidate, you know things are looking good.

Yet there's this feeling that I just can't shake. It comes back to numbers again. Namely that two weeks ago this race was pretty much a dead heat with McCain even leading. Now Obama is way ahead. But there's still three weeks left. In other words, plenty of room for yet another wild swing in the polls. I hope that doesn't happen. I really do. But this election has made pretty clear that no lead is safe and there's a lot of news cycles left until November 4.

Debate Thoughts

On the whole, I think that last night's debate (like the first one) was pretty much a tie. Neither candidate delivered any sort of knockout punch that's going to settle this election a month before the actual voting. Obama didn't say anything about bitter, small-minded Main Streeters and McCain didn't go off into a raving rant about Obama being friends with terrorists. Both clearly presented their views, which while contrasting, don't necessarily give one side an advantage over the other.

That said, I think that another tie probably favors Obama. Remember, McCain is the one who's experienced - the "steady hand on the tiller" as he said. But now in two debates, he's not been able to come across as noticeably more presidential or in command than Obama. If the concern with Obama is that he's too "green behind the ears" (a new one to me) then being able to stand toe to toe with McCain and appear plausible as president is a victory. Despite a slow start where my panic level was beginning to rise, I think he did just that. I don't think polls will show one candidate "winning" the debate by any great margin over their opponent. However, I do think that the election polls are going to continue to slide over to Obama's favor.

Now for some random thoughts.

John McCain should stop trying to be funny in the debates. He just isn't and the attempts at it come across as very awkward. Obama isn't an especially funny guy either, but he didn't make as many attempts.

Newsweek's cover a few weeks back showed "Mr. Cool and Mr. Hot." I thought those personalities were on vivid display last night. Where McCain paced around and spoke like he was always pressing an important point, Obama stayed mainly in one place and had a fluid, point-by-point answer. I don't think that either personality - as we saw them in display last night - makes one better or worse suited for the presidency. It was just a clear picture in contrasts.

The exchange on Pakistan was interesting. McCain wasn't saying that he wouldn't launch an attack into Pakistan if Osama bin Laden were there. He was just saying that we shouldn't say we're going to do that. I'm not sure if that makes a whole lot of sense. Also, his assertion that "I'll get bin Laden. I'll get him" would have been more convincing if he'd followed it up with anything to say how.

Lastly, I thought Tom Brokaw was terrible last night. The telling moment came at the end when the candidates went to shake hands and he was trying to read his teleprompter. He basically said, "Hey, you presidential candidates, get out of my way. I'm trying to read something here." The whole debate was kind of like that. He was continually whining (is there another word for it) about the candidates not sticking to time constraints. Also, his "follow-up" questions were overly wordy/complicated and seldom actually followed up on the original question asked or the answers that the candidates gave. It's like he really wanted to be moderating a debate on his own, rather than hosting the town hall debate. Who would have guessed after the first debate that we'd be longing for the good old days of Jim Lehrer moderating?

Guilt By Association

Yesterday I bemoaned the state of mudslinging in the campaign and laid the blame squarely in the McCain camp. While I'm still moaning (and still blaming McCain), I also want to level some criticism at the Obama campaign, in the interests of fairness.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Keating Economics video that the campaign is circulating is similar in spirit to the Ayers accusations that McCain and Co. are throwing at Obama. Of course, there are numerous differences. McCain was involved with Keating at the time that he (Keating) was doing bad things. Obama was 8 when Ayers was doing his dirty work. There was an investigation into McCain's dealings with Keating and he was chastised by the Senate Ethics Committee. But that investigation is exactly the point I want to bring up. Remember, the investigation found that McCain did nothing wrong. His judgement was poor and that allowed him to be put in a position where it looked like he might be doing something wrong, but he didn't take part in any wrongdoing himself. As we start throwing criticisms around, we should remember that facts matter. Any unfounded attempts to paint someone with the guilt by association brush are lamentable, no matter which side they come from.

Clearly McCain started this round of character attacks (he even said he was going to be). But saying, "He started it" isn't a great reason for doing something. I'd also like to point out that the "Oh yeah?" response isn't really a recipe for raising the level of political discourse. If I were advising Obama I'd say to focus relentlessly on the fact that McCain isn't putting forward any plans to help the middle class or to end the war in Iraq. Every time McCain says anything I'd say, "Once again, Senator McCain chooses to focus on X rather than present a plan for how he's going to help the middle class and end the war in Iraq." That's a change we can believe in.

On a slightly related note, you should really read this article from the New Yorker. It's their editorial board's endorsement of Obama for president. It presents a comprehensive, thoughtful, and thorough take down of the McCain campaign and at the same time builds up Obama's. It was one of the clearest articulations of the choice in this election that I've seen. Just brilliant. I didn't even know the New Yorker did endorsements.

Of course, for a candidate being accused of East Coast liberal elitism, the New Yorker endorsement may not be the most coveted one out there.

Here's Mud in Your Eye

I'm glad this election is going to be over in slightly less than a month now because at the rate we're going, if it lasted much longer the Republican candidates would really start slinging mud. I mean that literally. I'm picturing a debate where John McCain takes a handful of mud and throws it at Barack Obama. That seems to be the next logical step in the ever-increasing virulence of attacks directly on Obama.

The latest round comes as polls show McCain is getting clobbered in the election. So what's a maverick who pledged to run an honest, positive campaign to do? Well, it must have seemed pretty obvious to the team of mavericks, because they're going for the low blows.

Over the weekend, Palin said, "We see America as the greatest force for good in this world. Our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

This is from the campaign headed by a guy who said he would never question his opponent's patriotism. Isn't that what just happened? Isn't she saying that Obama not only hates America but that he's friends with terrorists who target America?

Of course, the McCain campaign sticks by the comments saying that it's a matter of fact. Never mind that the CNN fact check said this claim was false (as does everyone else who's seriously and honestly looked at the issue). What's important here is that people are hearing the words Obama and terrorist in the same sentence. That's not calling into account his judgement, that's just an outright smear. I really hope that people see this for what it is.

Political Tourette's Syndrome

First of all, I'm pretty shocked that the bailout bill failed to get approval in the House yesterday. When they announced on Sunday that a deal had been struck I just kind of assumed that, well, a deal had been struck. Usually that means that people agree. Apparently, this time it meant something else. So we'll stay tuned and see how things go today, but yesterday was not a glorious day in the history of U.S. finance or politics.

I wish I could say I was shocked (though I'm not) about the McCain campaign's immediate attacks against the Obama campaign. As a McCain advisor said, "This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country." Funny, I thought it was the huge number of Representatives voting against the bill that caused it to fail. But what do I know? Somehow McCain is trying to claim credit for the bulk of the substance of the bailout (despite not really being involved in the negotiations) and then blame Obama for it not passing. I'm not even sure what the supposed logic on this is. And the putting politics ahead of country line is just ridiculous.

It seems lately that the McCain campaign has been suffering from a form of political Tourette's Syndrome. At random times they just burst out with "Obama puts politics ahead of country!" or "All attacks on Palin are sexist!" It's like they can't help it. Facts and circumstances don't matter because "Obama is going to raise your taxes!"

My favorite example of political Tourette's from the McCain campaign is their labeling of the first Tina Fey as Sarah Palin sketch as sexist. As explained by a top McCain advisor, "The portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial. I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes, I would say, sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance."

To be clear, the argument goes that because Palin is being parodied as less substantive than Clinton, it is a sexist parody. Maybe someone missed the word that Clinton is also female. Saying one female is less qualified than another is not sexist. The argument doesn't even make sense on the face of it. Never mind that there's a pretty good case to be made that in fact Clinton actually is more qualified than Palin.

I write this, but I know that it doesn't really matter. Tourette's is not something that you can help. It just happens. Hopefully when this election is over the McCain campaign will have a nice, relaxing four years to sit back in Arizona and look for a cure.

And the Winner Is

After having watched the first presidential debate on Friday night and then having to full days to think about it, I have to say that from my completely objective perspective that Barack Obama was the clear winner.

Actually, that's not true. I thought (along with tons of pundits) that the debate was pretty even down the line. Neither candidate particularly dominated the debate either with his ideas or his personality. On the one hand, that didn't make for the most dramatic debate in presidential history. On the other hand, it finally provided the kind of substantive look at the candidates that I've been lamenting as missing for months now.

I'm mostly inclined to think that in a foreign policy debate, a tie favors Obama. It was supposed to be John McCain's comfort territory and Obama is supposed to be the new, inexperienced, naive one. The fact that he could hold his own with McCain on the topic of foreign policy indicates that a lot of the weaknesses he's attributed with might not be present after all. I think it was Josh Marshall who wrote that despite McCain saying that Obama "doesn't understand" several times, he sure gave the appearance of knowing what was going on.

My hesitation in saying that Obama won last Friday night is that it's based on an artificially low bar. Unlike Sarah Palin's struggles in interviews, no one seriously expected Obama to make any major mistakes. He's a tremendously intelligent person who's been running for president for over a year now. He's had plenty of time to organize his facts, figures, and arguments. The thinking that he would come off as unprepared was just wishful thinking. The flip side of this is that I would anticipate McCain coming off just as well in the economic debate at the end of this cycle. If we say that the underdog who holds mostly even is the winner in this debate, we have to be prepared to do it in that one too. That may not necessarily be wrong, but I think we should at least try to base our analysis on more than partisan spin and media hype.

I'm Just Asking

I have to say that I'm shocked - shocked - that John McCain's presence in Washington hasn't immediately led to a resolution in the negotiations for a Wall Street bailout plan. I mean, he suspended his campaign, people. What does it take? Just shocking.

In the meantime, we may or may not be having a debate tonight. On the off chance that McCain doesn't declare war on Japan to try to get us out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, here is a list of questions that I'd love to see asked at the debate tonight, which is supposed to focus on foreign policy. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but if these got asked I think we'd have a much clearer view of the candidates.

* So, is this debate actually happening?
* How do you define victory in Iraq?
* What is the greatest threat facing America right now and how would you address it as president?
* What conditions need to be present for you to authorize the use of the military?
* Do you support the Bush Doctrine, which calls for the preemptive use of military force?
* What role should our allies play in addressing global threats?
* Given the situation on the ground right now, what is your plan for the war in Iraq?
* Is it proper for the president to sit down to negotiate with leaders of hostile countries? What would such negotiations hope to accomplish?
* How does our trade policy need to be adjusted to cope with the rising economic power of countries like India and China?
* Are we safer now than we were eight years ago?

That's just the list off the top of my head. I don't think that it's too slanted in one way or another. Hopefully the questions the moderators ask tonight take on a similar tone.

That is, assuming McCain hasn't gone off and done something else.

How Convenient

I have to admit that I read the announcement that John McCain was suspending his presidential campaign to help deal with the financial crisis with a certain amount of amazement. I mean, here was a guy who was willing to put his own presidential aspirations on hold so close to the election in order to focus on the work that the country needs to do right now. He's not thinking of himself, just his country.

Hey.

Wait a minute.

Isn't this the guy who's running on the slogan that he'll always put the country first? Well, how convenient for him. By saying that he's stopping campaigning, he's actually still campaigning. I bet they were really toasting themselves over at McCain headquarters for that little bit of campaign jiu jitsu.

Maybe I'm just overly cynical, but this strikes me as little more than a cheap political gimmick. Interestingly, it seems like we've been seeing more and more of those from the McCain campaign as time goes on. First he was putting country first by suspending the convention when Hurrican Gustav approached. Now he's putting the country first by suspending his campaign while the financial crisis gets dealt with. I've read that he doesn't like campaigning very much, but come on.

The fact is, does stopping a campaign and not running political ads for a week actually help the economy? Is that really what's going to put Wall Street back on the road to fiscal solvency? Is John "I don't really know much about the economy" McCain really going to be in a good position to assist in complex negotiations about how to bail out Wall Street? Is this anything other than a political gimmick?

I think it's pretty obvious that the answer to all of those questions is a single, resounding NO.

The Anti-Midas of Education

This presidential campaign, like, I suppose, all presidential campaigns has the anti-Midas touch. Everything it touches turns ugly and bad somehow.

The latest is that Obama has started dishing out "tough talk on education" as CNN says. And that's a good thing. After all, McCain has already put out his plan. While I have serious problems with McCain's plan, I do give him credit for being willing and able to put the issue up front in the campaign. I tend to agree more with Obama's plan with its emphasis on early childhood education and college affordability. He too goes down the road of charter schools and choice, but that just seems to be the way things go this year.

I'm happy because now they're both talking about education.

I'm upset because of how quickly the conversation about education turned into a conversation about how much the other guy sucks. Read the article on CNN I linked to above. It starts off with Obama's plan and by about midway through the article it turns into "John McCain hasn't done anything for education." "No, Barack Obama hasn't done anything about education." And then the verbal food fight starts.

I know this has been happening the whole time and I know it's not unique to this campaign. It's just that I wish that for once, everything this campaign touched didn't turn into trash.

Come On People

I know it's still pretty early and there's a lot of time left before November, but the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll worries me a little bit. The poll shows McCain up by 4% among registered voters and 10% among likely voters.

Now, I get that the convention just happened and there's the bounce and all that, which is kind of what worries me. I watched the Republican Convention and was repulsed by what I saw. More of the same failed policies, mean-spirited partisanship, and the nomination for VP of someone who still isn't quite ready to have sat down for a real interview. And that was enough to create an 11 point swing among registered voters? Come on people!

Fortunately, it is just the convention bounce and we're still about two months (which equals about 8000 newscycles these days) before any actual voting takes place. Also, in the state by state match up, Obama still seems to be doing well. So we'll see what the next few months have in store for us.

Why McCain's Speech Made Me Sad

Watching John McCain's acceptance speech last night actually mad me sad. And not for any of the resons you're thinking.

The thing about the speech was, once you got past all the war hero/country first stuff, he actually laid out his vision for a more conservative government. Smaller government, fewer services, less taxes. This contrasts dramatically with Obama's vision for government that is a much more liberal/progressive stance. That's right. There's actually the potential for a real debate on the issues and on competing visions for where our country should go and how our government should get us there.

And yet the campaign has too often turned on personal slurs, slanders, and innuendoes. Unlike the Clinton/Obama campaign where they were close enough on the issues that we had to look to the personal for points of separation, the campaign between Obama and McCain has a clear contrast of visions for America's future.

I'm sad because all we're doing now is debating who's the bigger celebrity and who flip flops more politically.

Nasty Rudy and the RNC

Maybe I shouldn't have been, but I was surprised by the tone of the Republican Convention last night. I was really surprised at how completely negative the whole tone of the evening was. Don't get me wrong. I expected a few good zingers aimed at Obama and the Democrats. Clearly the Dems had gotten their fair share in. But I just wasn't ready for the barrage and vehemence with which the Republicans went on the offensive last night. I hate being so naive.

First of all, the Republicans drew the same battle lines that they've been drawing since I've been paying attention. They say that the Democrats are for higher taxes, bigger government, more control over your life, and collaboration with our enemies. Coming slightly less than 24 hours after Joe Lieberman's call for party unity, we can see that this is not going to be a high-minded campaign of civic-mindedness.

I loved how the chants from the crowd last night ranged from the patriotic ("USA") to the negative ("Zero") to the slightly comical ("Drill, Baby, Drill"). Really? Drill, baby, drill? Ugh. The state of political discourse in this country lags yet again.

Rudy Giuliani gave the kind of speech last night that reminds New York residents exactly why we're so glad that Michael Bloomberg is mayor now. I mean, really. Rudy Giuliani is a nasty man. I was literally watching in disbelief. His whole speech consisted of sarcastic mockery of Barack Obama. No real articulation of ideas. Nothing substantive to offer. Just nasty sarcasm being cheered on by the crowds in the convention hall. I can only hope that other people watching had the same reaction I did. Things in politics are nasty enough as they are without having our keynote speakers stoop to that level.

Sarah Palin's speech was really good, as I knew it was going to be. I wish I'd written that yesterday because now I sound like my brother when he went around trying to prove he was a psychic by saying over and over again, "I knew you were going to do that." But this is for real. I did know that Palin was going to give a good speech, especially in comparison to the hype of possible disaster she faced if her speech was bad. Her speech was kind of a cross between Michelle Obama's and John Kerry's given during the Dem convention last week. She started off painting a picture of how down home and normal she and her family are and then segued into a pretty forceful attack against the other guys. I thought she did both pretty well. She didn't do a whole lot to bolster her claims to experience in foreign policy, but I don't think that's really necessary. Like Obama, she's staking her claim to office on her judgement and on the change she can represent and create. Whether it's the change we want or need is going to be decided by the voters. But while we wait for that to happen, I thought she did a good job making her case.

RNC Time

I was actually able to stay fairly calm and even-keeled last night while watching the Republican Convention. Though several of the speakers got me a little riled up in one way or another, on the whole I kept an admirable veneer of calm. That being said, here are some of my thoughts on the first real night of the RNC.

First, Palin (unsurprisingly) is the main topic of conversation among the pundit class. Due to my cable limitations, I was watching the convention on PBS, which I tend to think of as being pretty solid, substantive news. Yet time and again, no matter what was being discussed on stage, Jim Lehrer and his team kept coming back to Palin. My favorite moment came when the convention saw a video and essay reading from a local high schooler about what the flag means to her. With patriotic music, images, and words it was hard not to feel proud to be an American. That ended and we cut back to Jim and the boys in the booth. Lehrer said something along the lines of, "What a moving tribute. [half second pause] Now, to return to Sarah Palin for a moment..." The moment, of course, turned out to be the rest of the night. Whereas the Democrats were surprisingly able to stay on topic during the entire convention, the Republicans seem to have lost some control over their message. Last night was supposed to be all about service, but you wouldn't have known that if you'd only been listening to Jim Lehrer.

Second, this whole thing with Palin's daughter. Frankly, I don't think it's any of my business. I certainly don't think that it says anything about Palin's ability or inability to serve as Vice President. (There's plenty of other evidence on that front.) I totally agree that it should be a private family matter. Again, watching PBS last night I saw McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds urging the matter to be left privately with the family. As he said, let's leave the private family matters private with the family. As soon as that interview was over we cut to the floor of the convention where someone was giving a speech about how great John and Cindy McCain are for adopting a daughter from Bangladesh. Now, wait a minute. I agree that it was a great thing to do, but I don't know if you get to argue that family matters don't/shouldn't affect our political discourse and then have someone give a speech about how great a family man John McCain is and that we should vote for him as a result. You can say family matters or that it doesn't, but you shouldn't get to try to have it both ways.

Last, Lieberman. For the guy who once described George Bush's (and now John McCain's) tax plan as like feeding the birds by giving more hay to the horses (think about it), it was pretty shocking to see him up on stage endorsing a Republican. I guess shocking isn't the right word because everyone has seen this coming for a long time. Maybe disheartening is a better word for it. For me, the highlight of his speech came when he talked directly to the American people (you could tell because he looked right at the camera and said he was going to talk to the American people now) and tried to say that John McCain isn't George Bush without saying that John McCain isn't George Bush because all the people in the convention hall had just cheered for George Bush about 30 minutes earlier. If you didn't already know what he was trying to say, his speech at that point would have been totally incomprehensible. But that's what you get for switching parties, I guess.

Tonight has Rudy and Palin on the agenda, so there should be plenty to talk about tomorrow.

Sarah Who?

I know that it's kind of old news at this point, but I'm just now getting my mind wrapped around John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Talk about a surprise pick. Before Friday morning I don't think I'd even heard her name in any context, let alone as a potential vice president. Talk about a startling and stunning choice.

On the one hand, I can see why McCain picked her. She is unapologetically conservative and has a reformer image that certainly would appeal to McCain. She's young and energetic and apparently is an excellent public speaker. After that, it gets a little hazy.

For a campaign that has largely based itself around the idea of experience and readiness to lead, the Palin pick seems like a hugely counterproductive move. It seems tremendously disingenuous to say that Palin has the foreign policy experience (from her time as Mayor of Wasilla?) that Obama lacks. As we learned on CNN yesterday, attempts to paint that picture end up looking pretty foolish.

Whereas Obama's choice of Biden prompted everyone to say, "Okay, good solid pick," McCain's choice prompted "WHO? No really, who is she?" As usual, Talking Points Memo is doing a great job breaking down the issues and doing the investigating on the new pick and so far the picture isn't exactly rosy. There seems to be plenty of fodder to undermine whatever upside Palin brings to the ticket.

When I first heard who McCain had chosen, I thought it was a transparent attempt to woo former Hillary supporters by putting a woman on the ticket. Now, I'm less convinced. As I hear and read more about this it seems more and more like an ill-thought out gut reaction. It hardly fills me with confidence in a potential President McCain.

I'll Get Back to You

I'm a big fan of telling details and small ironies. The telling detail is a moment that illuminates a larger situation. Irony you probably already get. It's especially nice when the two combine into one moment. That's why I loved it yesterday when McCain's attempts to paint Obama as the out of touch elitist ran into what should be a brick wall.

When McCain was asked how many houses he owns. His response? "I think -- I'll have my staff get to you. It's condominiums where -- I'll have them get to you."

Wow. This is the guy who's supposed to be in touch with the American people? He's not even in touch with himself or the fact that he owns seven houses valued at more than $13 million.

So here's the situation as I see it (or at least as it could be spun). McCain is so rich and/or addled that he's lost track of how many homes he actually owns. Either way, that can't be good for him. It either speaks to his out-of-touchness with the plight of the people or his out of touchness with his own life. I'd argue that the second scenario is probably worse than the first.

Not surprisingly, Obama is hitting this one hard in speeches and in an ad. What kills me is that it's not going to work. The narratives have been set and Obama is the elitist. McCain gets people. So even as McCain has more money, more homes, and can't even keep track of how many houses he owns, his staff is hitting at Obama for being elitist. Just ridiculous.

(Full disclosure: I had my staff check for me and I officially don't own a single home.)

Try a Little Thoughtfulness

Here's a pretty good column breaking down what exactly we saw at the candidate forum with Rick Warren over the weekend. Most of the professional pundits (and a good portion of the amateurs) seem to be saying that McCain came out on top of that one. While Obama wandered, McCain focused and gave personal, gut-feeling answers.

In one sense, that's exactly what happened. McCain's answers were significantly punchier than Obama's more professorial ruminations on the questions posed to him. The pundits all took that to mean that Obama lost and McCain won. I'm not so sure. At least, I'm not so sure that's the way things should be.

The fact is, we live in a very complicated world. Complex questions don't always have simple answers. Sometimes, in fact, giving simple answers is a disservice to the issue at hand. Take the war in Iraq. There are a variety of reasons - both good and bad - for our entering into the war and there are a variety of reasons - again, both good and bad - for getting out now. When looking at all of the different factors in play, I'm not sure if I want someone who offers a four word response to that issue. I think I would much prefer to have someone who has shown that they've thought through the issues and understand the nuances.

We've had eight years of gut feeling leadership. Maybe now it's time to try thoughtfulness.

The State of Affairs

Barack Obama has a new ad out that seems to be responding to McCain's celebrity ads. The gist of the ad is the old childhood retort: "I know you are, but what am I?" The ad shows clips of McCain on David Letterman, the View, SNL, and other shows. There's also clips of him being hugged by George Bush (which I think should appear in every Obama ad). It's not a bad ad in that it points out the hypocrisy of McCain's campaign, but I don't think it's a very good ad either. The problem with it is that it cedes the terms of the debate to McCain. Now the ad wars are about who's the bigger celebrity. That's ridiculous. It was silly when McCain did it and it's just as silly now that Obama's doing it.

As Joe Klein points out in this excellent column, there is a very real choice before voters this year that has nothing to do with who has been on TV more. McCain and Obama offer starkly contrasting views on foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy, and any other kind of policy that there is. This is a real election about where we want to go as a country. At least, it could be a real election about where we want to go as a country. We just aren't getting that right now. Instead we're getting a comprehensive debate that boils down to "You're a celebrity!" "No, you're a celebrity!" "No, you're a celebrity!" "No, you are!" It makes me sad.

The Contrast

Whatever you were planning on doing right now, you should stop and watch this video. Seriously. The music and some of the visuals are a little overdone/melodramatic, but it's scary. It's called Republicans and Military Men on John McCain. The gist is that McCain's first instinct is always to rely on force. He's beligerent. In the words of Pat Buchanan in the video, "There's no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. Can anybody see John McCain as kind of a peace time, Calvin Coolidge president?"

The answer is no. I can't see that. And that scares me a lot. So watch this video. After you see it, you may find yourself wanting to visit this site too.

In the interests of bringing balance to this post, here's the latest anti-Obama ad. How's that for a contrast?