I'm absolutely fascinated by the conflation that is going on.

Now that McCain (who has barely mentioned Bill Ayers until very recently) has decided to finally say something about Obama's unrepentant terrorist buddy, he's being accused of not only ignoring the economy, but going negative about a trivial subject.

For his part, Obama has been going negative too -- accusing McCain of close ties to lobbyists, in particular a man named Bill Timmons:

I'm a little confused about why McCain's ad condemning Ayers constitutes ignoring the economy, while Obama's attack on Timmons does not.

Might the rule be that connections to unrepentant lobbyists are more blameworthy than connections to unrepentant terrorists?

Hmmm...

Timmons is of course a DC insider who has worked for every Republican administration since Nixon. And he'd head McCain's transition team.

On the other hand, Obama's transition team would be headed by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, a registered lobbyist.

How repentant either of these men are of their lobbyist pasts, I don't know. It strikes me that whether lobbyists are good or bad might depend on whether you agree with what they're lobbying for.

When I made calls about Second Amendment issues, I was accused of being a lobbyist myself, so I don't think the term necessarily denotes evil. Certainly not on the same level as "terrorist."

But for the sake of argument, let's assume an absolute moral equivalency between lobbyists and terrorists. I'm still having trouble understanding why an attack ad against a candidate's coziness with either one would constitute an abandonment of the economic issues.

I don't need to remind regular readers that I think Obama's coziness with Ayers is the worst aspect of his candidacy. This does not mean the economy is not the most serious issue facing the country right now, but there's something dishonest about the argument that talking about Ayers means McCain doesn't care about the economy.

Nonsense. Would anyone maintain that McCain should limit himself to talking only about the economy? He has talked about countless other things, and only since he has mentioned Ayers has the opposition been screaming that he's avoiding the issue of the economy. By this same logic, McCain could claim that Obama's attack on Bill Timmons is his way of avoiding the economy -- especially his role in Fannie Mae and ACORN.

Which brings me to my point about conflation. If we assume that the economy is the number one issue, and more important than either Bill Ayers or Bill Timmons, from where derives the underlying idea that Barack Obama is the salvation of the economy? It strikes me that this is the unstated premise behind the claim that McCain is ignoring the economy. The idea is that he ignores it because he knows it's all his fault, and Obama is our only hope.

Why?

Excuse me, but I've been watching the twists and turns in this race for well over a year. Barack Obama's main issue was never the economy until last month. As recently as June, McCain was far more trusted on the economy than Obama. But the market tanked, so since last month, Obama has been seen as more trusted.

As to the reasons, I'm not sure why. Neither McCain nor Obama is in charge of the economy.

Might it be that people don't really understand economic issues, but they are capable of understanding Obama's endlessly repeated mantra which consists mainly of the word "change"? Is it possible that now that they're hurting (and being constantly inundated with the meme that they're actually "desperate"), the magic word just resonates with them as never before?

I don't know, but it's an intriguing possibility, even if there's not a lick of logic or rationality behind it.

In this regard, Glenn Reynolds linked a post by Steve Sturm:

In this election, voters are leaning towards Obama because:

(1) they have convinced themselves their lives will be so much improved with 'Change',

(2) they have convinced themselves they can afford the purchase (it helps that Obama is selling 'Change' as being cost-free to 95% of America),

(3) they have convinced themselves that Obama can deliver this 'Change' (remember, it doesn't matter whether we believe he can (or will), what matters is whether the voters think so, and it is pretty apparent that they do), and

(4) there's nothing about Obama (family, past activities, friends) that so sours them that they're willing to do without this 'Change'.

They're not concerned with his past, and, despite GOP thinking, it isn't because they don't know of his past associations. They're not concerned with Obama's past because they have feel it is irrelevant to Obama delivering the 'change' they so desperately want (a desperate want is, by definition, a need). Put another way, they don't care if he did X or Y when he was younger, they just want this 'change' he's offering.

Change? What kind of change?

Is radicalism not one form of change?

As Barack Obama himself warned, change is hard:

Change for its own sake has a bad track record.