Yet, despite Democratic nominees' ability to win "the debates" in the past 2 election cycles, Republicans learned how to "win" the debates in the poll numbers. What marks Obama as capable of governing a national economy? A law degree or a anti-war speech? Sure, people are anxious and downright scared, but can Obama assure enough of the independent / swing voters who have been reluctant to support him to this point in an environment that once alleged an insurmountable Democratic advantage?

Regardless of what a baroness may think, Obama has surrounded himself with some of the most conservative economic teams that Democrats can buy. If he wins the presidency, we are in for a world of hurt from the kind of half-a$$ed economic tinkering that fearful Democratic political  insiders peddle in Washington (and today I am reading that both McCain and Obama have the same opinion on the cause of AIG, while McCain takes the more bold step of supporting a bailout). The only bold statements we are hearing from Obama is his condemnation of Republican economic ideology as the cause of recent business failures, and that seems satisfying if nothing else - because it is what we came to expect from the Clintons, and proud Democrats in general.

That does not put McCain away, though. That is a message that had to be drilled into the heads of independents and swing voters over and over for many months before the failure. We Democrats hear him, but the kind of voters who still remembered Reagan fondly - as Obama did at one point in the primaries - will have their own populist explanations at the ready to make sense of the current crisis. We Democrats could run on the legacy of FDR and Truman, of government oversight and regulation, if we resurrected our party philosophy over the past 18 months (or 2 years of putative Congressional control) - rather than postpartisanship.

Now, I worry that there is not enough play at the margins for Obama to make the Democrats' case in an election. Especially, one in which his own advisers counsel offer the same explanations and a more callous - or, should I say, free market? - responses to financial failure than McCain's advisers. And while Obama mocks McCain, the newspapers seem more intent in communicating what McCain is doing to show that he "gets it too" and follow his shifting economic proposals for the crisis. A la Ike, beware lest McCain gain the upperhand on the latest repetition of history. In at least one important respect, McCain seems to understand that populism must be heard, not explained at a podium.

I do not know, cannot predict, if the economy will stay in the news for two weeks - we are so ADD when it comes to information, but if there are more bailouts and financial disasters it very well could. And if the jobs report is like it was in August this will hang around McCain's neck unless he finds a way to distract us all...and I think it would take one of those flashy-thingies from Men in Black. Not that I want to give him any ideas.

There will be additional job loses as we know from the bank collapses so September is probably going to be another doosey.

Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 2.2 million and the unemployment rate has risen by 1.4 percentage points, with most of the increase occurring over the past 4 months.

Egads.

Our houshold became part of the statistic in June and that hasn't changed, yet, and it isn't looking good.

But BTD, I'm confused about the economy "pushing" Obama to the 5-pt lead when according to the story the results are

statistically unchanged from the tally in the last New York Times/CBS News poll, in mid-August.