Obamanomics and McCain's focus on friends

Over the last week both candidates have unveiled slightly different stump speeches and ads. The McCain camp has decided to focus on Barack Obama's associations with radicals in Chicago politics while Obama has focused on blaming McCain for people's economic woes.

Here's a brief run down.

Obama:

What:
He argues that McCain's philosophy of deregulating markets is responsible for the financial crisis.

Why it works:
The Republicans are still seen as the party in power. They controlled the congress and the White House and despite a recent change they still take the blame for bad news.

What he's not telling you:
Both the Bush white house and John McCain sponsored regulation of securities based on home loans in 2003 and 2006 respectively. In both cases those regulations were blocked by Democrats in congress. While it's fair to say that the Republicans did not push hard enough for these regulations, it's untrue to argue that Republicans are, alone, to blame for the lack of regulation. Fact is that Democrats in the house had supporters who were interested in providing low income people with homes. These constituents urged their members to block regulation that would make it more difficult for those low income folks to get a loan. While it's noble to want people to be able to afford a home, when those regulatory proposals were blocked it encouraged sub-prime lending and contributed to the crisis. McCain can't explain that, because it's about 6 steps removed from "they were the party in power so they did it." Unfortunately, while the Republicans have a very good argument that, though good intentioned, the Democrats contributed more to the financial melt-down that Republicans, it just is too complicated for a poor communicator like Bush or McCain to explain.

McCain:

What:
He argues that Obama's associations with William Ayers, Rev. Wright and Tony Resco disqualify him to be president because he's shown a lack of good judgement in the past and is presumably radicalized himself.

Why it's working:
These guys are villains, there's no doubt. Ayers is a self proclaimed terrorist, and Obama did work closely with him on a fairly dubious education program in Chicago. Wright is a radical and he was Obama's spiritual advisor up until those videos came out and to believe Obama didn't know is to believe Clinton didn't inhale. Tony Resco is a felon, currently in prison for being a slum lord, and Obama worked closely with him to help provide housing to low-income folks in Chicago. Among people who don't give Obama the benefit of the doubt it hurts him to be associated so closely.

What he's not telling you:
First, this is Chicago. Obama was an ambitious Harvard grad who was interested in moving up in the Chicago political system. Thing is, these radicals and former terrorists are in control of Chicago. In that way these associations damn Chicago, as much or more, than they did Obama. To succeed in that political environment it requires these deals with bad people. In that way Obama's associations might be dismissed as somewhat less voluntary and more utilitarian than they normally would be. Still bad folks but if Obama was practically interested in moving up the political ladder he had to cow-tow to them... or get out of Chicago.

Second, It's the economy stupid. The real reason that Obama is getting a pass is because nobody cares! The folks are prioritizing their wallets. These associations are just not important enough to move the dial in comparison to those issues where Obama is winning. So it ends up being just so much hot air that is off topic because doesn't address the real issue this year: the economy. It also helps that Obama maintains some of his "well I just like the dude regardless" appeal.

Conclusions:
Despite promoting policies that will objectively hurt any economic recovery Obama is winning the issue. The appeal to folks of goodies given out by the government now with money borrowed or higher taxes has worked. It will keep working for awhile even and our country is prosperous enough to afford a bit more anyway. Still, there will be a few folks out there who get a check in the mail from Obama and laid off in the same month because taxes went up.

I guess the end is that Obama isn't so far to the left or unlikable that he's an unacceptable alternative to the Republican party folks want to throw out of office, and McCain isn't a good enough communicator to change that basic fact regardless of policy. It's not impossible that McCain can manage another surge but I'm not counting on it.