Dick Polman is on the left, and while I don't agree with him politically, he's a shrewd political analyst. Yesterday, in a column calling the current economic problems a "mojo opportunity" for Obama he expressed obvious irritation at his party, saying that if Obama couldn't exploit this economic opportunity properly, they didn't deserve to win:

The Wall Street meltdown has provided Barack Obama with perhaps his best opportunity to extricate himself from the sludge poured so copiously by his opponents. This is serious stuff, unlike the various pig/lipstick/Britney/Paris/Palin sideshows, and, quite frankly, if Obama can't turn this economic crisis to his political advantage, he doesn't deserve to win. Indeed (and here I am updating one of my old lines), if the Democrats can't win a presidential election in this climate, they should simply go out of business, just like Lehman Brothers, and take up residence in the history wing of the Smithsonian Museum, sharing a display window with the Whigs.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the average voter perceives either Obama or McCain as an economic wizard capable of performing miracles.

The president is seen as a stabilizing figure, though, so in uncertain economic times (which these are), it is natural for people to look to leaders for signs of reassurance. Obama is hardly reassuring. He is young, he is green, and he is on the left. By contrast, to say that John McCain has "been around" is almost understatement. So, while neither man is an economic magician, McCain wins on the "stability" issue. (Hence the campaign to picture him as an angry, tantrum-throwing man, or as a literally demonic warmonger -- a "warmongerer" depending on your educational preferences.)

Statistically, the race is a virtual tie. McCain offers experience, but is somewhat hobbled by being a longtime member of the incumbent party, while Obama, even though he is new, seems eloquently repetitive. His message that "we need change" is already sounding stale, and his efforts to tie McCain to Bush could backfire, not just because McCain really is a maverick, but because most American voters realize in their hearts that Bush is not actually Satan. Activist Democrats tend to forget that his low approval rating (currently at 32.6%) does not mean that the other 64.3% aren't tired of Bush for a number of reasons, but neither does it mean they're gnashing their teeth and stuck in a permanent case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Too much reliance on BUSH=EVIL=MCCAIN could backfire -- especially if something happens that gives Bush an opportunity to look like a beleaguered senior statesman doing what's best for the country at the last minute.

So I think McCain Obama remain a draw. If I were a Democrat, I'd be counting on Biden right now. Not Obama. Biden might not be my idea of a senior statesman, but he beats Obama in that department. And it's such a close race that if Obama and the Democrats have any sense, they ought to sit back and let Biden play the senior statesman game -- even if it might appear to slight Obama.

Biden can play the old LBJ game of "Which finger do you want on the button?" Frighten people. He can cleverly capitalize on the Palin-bashing, not by endorsing it, but by emphasizing his stability -- and (by insinuation) the unstable nature of the other side.

People on the left have done their best to make Sarah Palin look like a kook, and a religious nut. (Perfect example here.) I don't think she's a kook, but the GOP better hope there aren't any videos floating around of the sort that would make her look that way. The Kenyan "witch hunter" stuff (which Drudge linked yesterday) has no real substance to it, but I think the idea might be that if they throw a lot silly stuff at her -- the "sideshows" which Polman dismisses -- it might have a sort of cumulative effect, so that Biden won't have to address it directly, but he can just remind Americans about the importance of stability, and the importance of whose finger is on the button. This worked for LBJ when he ran against Barry Goldwater (who was painted by Democratic operatives as a kook with slogans like Bill Moyers' "In your guts, you know he's nuts," and whose endorsement of "extremism in defense of liberty" proved to be a bonanza for the other side). I think a similar approach might be able to work again, assuming Biden can pull off the "stability" "senior statesman" ethos -- and assuming sufficient numbers of Americans buy into the meme that Palin is a kook.

But there's a downside in framing the question as "Do Americans care about stability?" in that the familiar and older McCain is seen as inherently more stable than the younger, unfamiliar Obama. Biden is also known for his gaffes, and he might not be able to pull off looking like a senior statesman without the appearance of sexist condescension.

It's a complicated game. Charlie Gibson learned that male condescension only helped Governor Palin, who not only did not come off looking kooky, but made him look like a bit of an ass. OTOH, Gibson doesn't have Biden's "finger on the button" advantage; all he can do is push the edit button and erase anything that might have benefitted his quarry guest.

Of course, there's a downside in framing the question as "Would America prefer to have Biden's finger on the button?"

Not only does it up the ante to national security (an area where Democrats don't fare well), but people might start asking, "well then, why he isn't at the top of the ticket?"

Besides, if we want to debate "sideshow" issues, I think Jeremiah Wright has them all beaten. He makes Palin's pastor look boring. (Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed by the absence of snake handlers in any of these churches, but that's just me.)

Polman is right about one thing. Focusing on the "sideshow" tends to make people forget that the election is between McCain and Obama. However, the more Obama looks like a loser, the better the case for focusing on the "sideshow" becomes.

If Biden pulls an LBJ, we'll know why.

UPDATE: Here's Rick Moran on the current economic situation:

...there seems to be general agreement that the situation is serious but that the Federal Reserve is on top of the situation. There is some disagreement whether the federal government should be stepping in with both feet, but, as far as the immediate crisis, it is being handled.

The problem is uncertainty -- a state of affairs financial markets hate. And that uncertainty is due to the least predictable element in the markets -- the human mind. The next few days will tell the tale whether 50 million years of mammalian evolution has produced a rational being using his higher brain functions or a frightened, panicky marmoset scared of his own shadow who relies on the medulla oblongata for smarts.