What's going on with the administration's healthcare announcement today? Ezra Kline is skeptical that the announcement is much more than symbolics:

What we have, in other words, are promises of future cost containment that exist alongside concrete and continued opposition to the cost containment ideas that are actually on the table. And for good reason. A 1.5 percentage point decrease in health spending is a 1.5 percentage point decrease in medical industry profits. This commitment doesn't contain any examples of concessions that will reduce a participant's revenue streams. Conversely, every time legislators have proposed a reform that will actually cut industry profits -- and thus cut health spending -- the industry has howled in pain and anger. It's hard to sync that with promises to cut spending by $2 trillion over the next 10 years by implementing a set of unspecified reforms.

And the answer is: Not much. As one senior administration official said to me, "this is a commitment, not a plan."

Why would the healthcare industry go on record as setting huge cost savings--and profit shaving--goals? What do they gain? I have my suspicions.

I wonder if the industry representatives involved in today's announcement are offering their support contingent on the abandonment of the public program portion of Obama's healthcare plan. Maybe the Obama administration is (secretly?) planning something for the healthcare industry like he's already done with the banking industry and automobile industries.

Banks had to submit themselves to "stress tests", the failure of which would bring about the requirement to meet goals through private or public measures. It could be a sneaky way to nationalizing some banks by forcing some banks to acknowledge that they are essentially insolvement and therefore converting preferred shares of government-owned stock into private shares.

GM and Chrysler were given government relief contingent upon agreeing to develop comprehensive turnaround plans that met government approval. If they failed, then government would refuse aid, giving the companies the need to go into bankruptcy which could eventually lead to government-run takeovers.

Maybe Obama's actual unannounced goal with respect to healthcare is to let industry try the private option first, and then go to public mandates or public programs only after the private sector has proved incompetent. Maybe Obama will let the industry set "voluntary" cost setting goals and coverage goals for private insurers without mandates or a public option, and then, if they fail to meet those objectives, that would be tantamount to the banks failing their "stress tests". Subsequently, the government could step in with a public plan, price controls, mandates or other measures that could be politically risky if implemented as anything other than a last resort.

I have no psychic insights into what the administration is really thinking, but the pattern in the Obama administration's policy overhauls so far seems to be to build industry and public support for major national interventions by giving the private sector a chance to fail first. Could Obama be thinking of making the first phase of his healthcare reform plan "voluntary"? Just asking.

I'd like to continue the conversation begun in my previous post "How the GOP Could (and Should) Come Back". In that post, I argued that:

There's no reason the GOP couldn't win by taking policy stands more or less the same as those that won elections for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, but by offering an approach that rhetorically emphasizes precisely the opposite values. In short, Republicans might offer a style of governing that emphasis different priorities than the Democrats while offering essentially the same program.

It seems that most of the comments focused on a different issue than that raised by the post: whether or not the Republican party is likely to adopt a post-ideological, post-partisan, pragmatic approach. And few think that the GOP in its current incarnation will do so, and I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. It's right that the GOP is in a wilderness; but it remains to be seen just how dark and deep the forest is, and when they will find a clearing or exit.

One commenter expressed the sentiment:

What you are saying is this: GOP could be basically Democrats but pretend that they are republicans. Nice dream but fat chance.

That's part of it (hey it worked for Bill Clinton, didn't it?), but it's not quite right because it takes a shortsighted view of politics. I'm not merely suggesting GOPs become "stealth Democrats"; I'm saying that if they become more pragmatic and less rigid, then they can see how their core principles (not ideology, but core values) can be applied in fresh ways that lead to new policy opportunities and priorities.

Let's look at an issue that's dear to my heart as a staunchyly pro-same-sex marriage Democrat and an author of two books on gay culture, politics, and philosophy. Same-sex marriage could be a winning issue for both political parties; however, both parties would be attracted to different values that the policy embodies.

Progressives embrace same-sex marriage primarily as a civil rights issues and freedom of choice, a position that puts them in the position of being seen as taking an "anything goes", relativistic stand. Conservatives embrace same-sex marriage because it's pro-family, and it expands who's included in the definition of family by recognizing gay and lesbians are part of families and need to be included in society's traditional institutions.

Therefore, Republicans could strongly embrace same-sex marriage as a pro-family issue, and simultaneously oppose laws that weaken traditional marriage (e.g., domestic partnership legislation). They could become advocates of same-sex marriage because of its conservative virtues, essentially encouraging responsibility and an end to non-marital sexual activity across the board.

So, the GOP could couple their pro-family agenda with fresh ideas about using government to discourage divorce, and make an anti-divorce campaign central to their politics. For example, the GOP could promote voluntary "covenant marriage laws" (laws that give soon-to-be-married couples the option of selecting a form of marriage that makes divorce much more difficult). Taking a firm stand against DIVORCE could be the hot new issue with which they rally their Religious Right base.

An anti-divorce politics would probably resonate with their base, perhaps even more so than an anti-gay agenda in the long-term, while perhaps winning converts from culturally conservative Democrats. I don't know that there's any polling on the younger generation's attitudes towards divorce, but it's quite possible that youth raised in an age where Brittney Spears and other celebrities have trivialized marriage could be attraced to a pro-family policy agenda that isn't just a mask for homophobia.

Over the long-term there will be a viable opposition party to the Democrats whether it's the GOP or an up-and-coming new party, and this will be a healthy development for democracy. The question, I think, is whether they can move from clinging to old, out-of-touch issues to new both-and approaches that emphasize conservative values without prejudice. 

My own theory on predicting the 2008 race is pretty simple: I like FiveThirtyEight.com's credibility, but I want to work with the theory that Nate Silver is basically underestimating Obama's and the Democrats' margins by 2% across the board. 

This super-sophisticated theory is based on the following assumptions: (a) a high emphasis on Obama's superior ground-game which isn't built-in to the polling data, (b) accounting for a late surge not captured in the polls; (c) accounting for the early voting edge for Obama; (d) the cellphone advantage; (e) the Reverse Badley effect; (f) backlash to this weekend's Rev. Wright ads tipping some undecided voters into Obama's column, and (g) a wild ass guess/wishful thinking.

What would it mean if the Democrats overperform by 2%? At the end of the day, Obama will probably lead in the popular vote total of 53% to 45% (actually that's +1 for Obama and -1 for McCain over FiveThirtyEight.com's projections).

So what would the electoral map look like if Obama outperforms Monday's state polls (as interpreted by Nate's projections) by 2%?

Obama: North Carolina, Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New Hampshire

McCain: Georgia, Montana, Arizona, Nebraska

Electoral Vote:
Obama: 378, McCain: 160

When I add 2% to the three Senate races leaning GOP, Chambliss (R), McConnell (R), and Wicker (R) still win. Therefore, I'm predicting 58 Dems (including independents), 42 Republicans in the Senate.  

I haven't calculated the impact of a 2% overperformance on House races, but a wild guess:
Democrats: 266, Republicans: 169.

Finally, I'm going with this prediction for the Minnesota Senate:

Franken: 42%, Coleman: 40%, Barkley: 13%

 

There's one tactic John McCain hasn't exploited yet in his campaign ... the real "nuclear option" ... and Obama supporters should be very afraid.

It's a tactic proven to work, and is especially effective for last-minute, come-from-behind campaigning. In fact, it's been known to make a double-digit polling lead evaporate overnight.

Pollsters and pundits alike have been flustered before, and they can be again. McCain's strategists are well aware of this tactic's effectiveness, and they are surely awaiting just the right moment for its deployment for maximum effectiveness.

It worked for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, and it can work again. Soon, John McCain will cry.

In "Obama Hasn't Closed the Sale," appearing in the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove explains that the race isn't over yet, and Mr. McCain still has a clear path to victory (if he is wise enough to follow Rove's guidance). Here, in brief, are his three biggest nuggets of wisdom for Mr. McCain:

Mr. McCain appears to be making three important course corrections. First, he and Gov. Sarah Palin are sharpening their stump speeches so their sound bites come off well on TV....

Second, Mr. McCain is shaping a story line that draws on well-founded concerns about Mr. Obama's lack of record or experience. Mr. McCain is also bowing to reality and devoting most of his time to the economy....

Mr. McCain's other adjustment is his schedule. His campaign understands the dire circumstances it faces and is narrowing his travels almost exclusively to Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado and Nevada. If he carries those states, while losing only Iowa and New Mexico from the GOP's 2004 total, Mr. McCain will carry 274 Electoral College votes and the White House.

Got that? By tweaking his sound bites for TV, hitting Obama hard on the "experience" issue that worked so well for Hillary, and by throwing up a white flag in every Kerry state plus Iowa and New Mexico, McCain may be able to pull off "the most impressive and improbable political comeback since Harry Truman in 1948".

Something needs to be said here about the audacity of Mr. Rove in continuing to hold himself up as a guru, bestowing sage advice to struggling adepts, despite the fact that so far the 2008 race has served as a resounding repudiation of his grotesque legacy of fear and smear politics. Somebody needs to tell Mr. Rove that he's obsolete.

Or soon will be, as we will learn early in the evening on November 4. 

The Blue Dogs are fiscally conservative and moderate Democrats, many from deep red states. In a Washington Post report today, we learn several important facts:

1. There are 49 Blue Dogs in the House, many in powerful positions.
2. Their ranks are expected to swell after the November election. 
3. According to Obama himself, the Blue Dogs will have the power to "block or clear" his legislative initiatives.
4. At the urging of Obama's transition team, headed by Clinton administration veteran John Podesta, Obama is now actively courting their support.

Repealing the Bush tax cuts? Big spending on alternative energy, education, and infrastructure? Universal healthcare? Comprehensive immigration reform? Gay civil unions or repealing DOMA? Even with a Democratic majority in the House, Barack Obama can't take for granted that he'll have the support he needs to enact his agenda.

Not only is Obama making louder noises about fiscal responsibility these days, he's probably starting to realize how difficult his situation will be. He'll be under enormous pressure from the center/right to scale back his spending and under pressure from the left/netroots to keep his promises.

I'm old enough to remember that George H. W. Bush promised "read my lips: no new taxes", but when he actually had to govern, he signed a tax increase. Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 on a pledge to cut middle class taxes, but didn't propose one. Clinton also wanted a $30 billion tax hike on energy, but couldn't get it passed.

So I have to wonder just which campaign promises Obama is going to leave behind?

I hope Obama will continue the same brilliant instints he's shown as president as he's shown as a campaigner. For more than a year, he's shown remarkable focus in defining his campaign's messages and strategies, executing them with discipline, and not getting sidetracked by diversions. 

He's been up in the polls and down, but he hasn't made any big course changes. Even when he moved from the primary to the general campaign, his slogan shifted only from "Change You Can Believe In" (subtly digging at Hillary Clinton's negatives on honesty and character) to the "The Change You Need" (striving to focus the campaign on issues, rather than making a contrast on character). 

Instead of taking back any of his campaign promises, I hope Obama will have the strength of will to keep them. If anything, the fiscal crisis gives him an opening to argue that large hikes in government spending investments and tax cuts are necessary to avert recession.

If he plays his cards right, he can keep all his promises while portraying himself as a real fiscal conservative who is deeply concerned to minimize government borrowing. He can make a few largely symbolic gestures--for example, demanding that most of the new federal agency directors submit balanced budgets--to bolster his image. He might also want to consider proposing a Constitutional Amendment to allow a presidential line-item veto. 

Steady leadership and commitment to his principles will help him to win the support of many centrists and Republicans, and help to cement the Democratic control of the federal government. And if he can win over the Blue Dogs, he can not only win his progressive agenda, but actually move America's political center of gravity towards the left.

Cross-posted at Joe-Perez.com

Last week we learned that Barack Obama has purchased a half-hour of primetime television on at least two networks for October 29, and is negotiating for additional time. However, nobody knows how the 30 minutes will be used, except for a general sense that it will convey the campaign's "closing argument".

TPM Cafe readers who want to chime in with their own 2 cents as to what THEY think Obama should do with the time are encouraged to leave their thoughts in the comment box below or contact Obama himself.

Naturally, both serious and joking suggestions are welcome. I

Here are my own suggestions, reposted from Joe-Perez.com:

Putting on my Pundit cap:

I want to see a montage of voters -- tilted heavily towards recently undecided voters in swing states, naturally -- speaking straight to the camera and explaining how they've come around to their decision to vote for Obama/Biden. Some of the montage interviews should be filmed at campaign rallies conducted in the next few weeks, and these clips should be interspersed with excerpts from Obama's stump speeches and other memorable campaign moments. The ad should close on a pithy closing argument delivered on the stump by Obama, followed by "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message."

And:

Putting on my Joker cap:

Do the same video as above, but include interviews with voters who support John McCain. They should be asked pointed questions such as: "How will McCain's economic policies be different from president Bush's?" or "Do you get your health insurance from your employer? Okay. Will you be one of the 20 million Americans whose insurance will be dropped as a result of McCain's plan?" ... and then show the voters clueless, stumped, embarrassed, their tongues wagging in the wind.

Better yet, intersperse the above clips with real interviews with well-known Hollywood comedians and actors giving humorous but poignant commentary on why they're voting for Obama. Do it! McCain's "celebrity" attack ads are ancient history, and voters will remember the jokes and repeat them the next day at the office or at school. Humor is a powerful tool.

Since the post-RNC-convention John McCain has made the elimination of earmarks the centerpiece of his "reform" agenda, why shouldn't Barack Obama vow to eliminate earmarks, too? While Obama is setting forth his agenda for healing the nation's economic misery, perhaps he should cut out the one leg propping up the McCain/Palin agenda by saying he'd so the same thing? In fact, there are some ways that Obama could make the case that he will be more proactive than McCain at cutting wasteful government spending and reducing corruption and pork in the government appropriations process.

Perhaps Obama could make the pledge very specific, something like this: I will put an end to the days when lawmakers put pork into legislation in the middle of the night by signing into law in my first year in office a comprehensive government appropriations reform bill that will eliminate the earmarking process by the end of my first term. Going forward, any  specific government setasides will be proceeded by public hearings and done via an open, honest, and transparent process (which is really all McCain has vowed to do anyways, his sweeping rhetorical statements aside).

Obama is the real reformer in this election. In his short time as a Senator, he has already demonstrated a willingness to tackle ethics legislation. It seems natural that as president he would be willing to sign legislation that would improve the transparency and openness of the legislative process. 

Why not steal this issue for McCain and thereby make it virtually impossible for McCain/Palin to cast themselves as the real change agents? McCain can hardly cite as a major flaw that Obama has sought earmarks in the past, given that Palin has done the same thing.

My best guess is the American people don't care a whit about earmarks. I would also guess that the government appropriations process could get along just fine without earmarks as such (probably any reform legislation would find some sort of clever way to substitute something much like this for legislators' pet projects but under a different name). So why give McCain this leg to stand on, when Obama can cut it out from under him at very little cost?

Now that ABC has aired Sarah Palin's first interview detailing her extensive foreign policy experience...

Gibson alluded to McCain's recent statement that Alaska's proximity to Russia lent Palin some expertise on that nation, asking Palin to explain.

"They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska -- from an island in Alaska," she said.

Sounds to me like it's time for Joe Biden to give a foreign policy press conference at the Bering Strait ... maybe from that island in Alaska where you can allegedly see Russia. What a great visual! And the press are already in Alaska, anyways.
Joe Biden is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and one of the wisest, most knowledgeable people in America. Sarah Palin can almost see Russia from her house. The image just speaks for itself. 

Now I feel like a fool. Read this truly must-read post by Andrew Sullivan, wherein one of his readers makes the case that the Liberal Blogosphere has been duped by the McCain campaign. 

How did Rove's proteges pull off this feat? How did he replace Thoughtful Liberal Bloggers with Pod People?

We have been focusing all our energy on replying to McCain's sleaze, Palin's lies, rebuting their arguments, defending ourselves, digging up dirt, we have totally turned the Liberal Blogosphere "McCain Central". We've forgotten Obama! We're not pushing Obama's message! We're reinforcing McCain's narratives! We're helping John Sidney McCain win!

It's not enough to "Drop SARAH PALIN like a BAD HABIT!!! WE are running the McCAIN/BUSH/ROVE playbook for them!!"  only to start "digging up all the dirt we can find and verify on John Sidney McCain" -- despite O¿O's good intentions, that too is still giving up a focus on driving home Obama's Story, Why We Must Have Change, Why Only Obama/Biden Can Be Trusted to Deliver That Change, What Obama Is Doing and Why It Matters, and What Biden is Doing and Why It Matters.

Can we try a full day -- say, Saturday, Sept. 12 -- where nobody at the TPM Cafe blogs about McCain or Palin or feeds on any of their narratives and frames? Let's try turning the page.

I promise not to post anything to TPM Cafe tomorrow-- not even in the comments -- that will simply focus all of its attention on What McCain is Saying, What Palin is Saying, or Why They're Wrong. Just for a day, one day at a time.

Is anyone else up for this challenge?

And ... here's a clip from Sullivan's reader:

It also occurs to me that in a way McCain and Rove have actually simply taken over the liberal blogosphere in some way. They are being played.

Just a few examples---yesterday Obama gave a fantastic interview at the Service Forum. Did the liberal blogs even cover this? No.

He gave a great speech on the trail. Are his town halls even posted or excerpted? No.

The liberal bloggers have become McCain central. They make people click on his ads, make the world spin around him instead of focusing on our candidate and what he is trying to do. There is ZERO coverage of what Obama is actually doing every day talking tough on the issues. There is ZERO coverage of Biden (who is on the trail but the blogs don't seem to care or cover him unless he is doing what they think he should be doing. Sadly AFP did cover him this week and people seemed to be too busy saying he was not doing anything to include the link with his forceful comments against McCain. The one time the blogs linked to Biden---when the MSM tried to make a big deal out his answer to a question that made Hillary look bad and he defended her. That was it).

McCain and crew realized early this cycle that they did not have a visible internet presence. So what did they do?  They took over the liberal presence, they are manipulating the leading liberal blogs , just as they manipulate the MSM.  All to their own advantage. And the blogs have all fallen for this hook, line and sinker. Does no one realize this?

They are all being played.

And Obama, god bless him, he gets it. As does his team. while everyone whines he keeps at it every day with much much class and like a laser focused on the issues. The problem is not Obama, is that no one wants to follow his lead. Instead they are following McCain-Rove and they don't even know it.

Please recommend this post if you're willing to go a full day -- tomorrow -- without recycling McCain and Palin's talking points (except in the photographic negative version "But... But... But...")!

John McCain may be too cowardly to have given a press conference in over a month, but it looks like even the powder puff media is starting to turn a little testy. So if you haven't already check out the clips of McCain on The View. 
Watching one bald lie after half-truth after distortion, I just had the feeling that McCain has just stopped even trying to tell the truth. He blatantly lied (or was truly ignorant?) about Palin's love for earmarks, claiming she never requested any. His defense of approving misleading TV ads? "This is a tough election." 
Barbara Walters was persistent in asking him to spell out exactly how he and Palin are going to "reform" Washington, but he couldn't give her a straight answer. Not only does he have to lie about her earmarks, but he keeps repeating the notion that she "took on" an incumbent Republican governor. Somebody please explain to me why it should be in any way remarkable that she should be given credit for mounting a primary challenge against a scandal-plagued Governor? Doesn't every primary or general election candidate "take on" the incumbent? 
Listen to a classic question from Whoopi Goldberg: "Does that mean you're going to return me to slavery?" Hmmm... I didn't hear McCain respond clearly No ... and he did say that he wasn't going to impuse any litmus tests. Draw your own conclusions.

(Reminds me of Dustin Hoffman's crack on Leno: John McCain is so old, he OWNED Sidney Poitier.)
So what do you think about these clips on The View? Am I the only one who is utterly disgusted by the dishonorable, disgusting campaigner John McCain has become?

Today I read a blog comment from a Republican gloating that Obama made a verbal gaffe by talking about his "Muslim faith" today, the right-wing radio was going nuts over it, and now "The Race Is Over!"
Of course, I knew the source of the rumor must be the Drudge Report. Sure enough. Today it linked to a story on the right-wing Washington Times website about Obama's "Muslim faith" gaffe. The link was broken. 
So I found this today on ABC News: "Obama didn't change religions on ABC". Long story short: Obama referred to the right-wing smears on his so-called "Muslim faith", but unfortunately he didn't use the snide tone of voice or the "quote marks" gesture in the air, and Stephanopolous took him to be making a verbal gaffe. Obama didn't immediately correct Stephanopolous' misunderstanding ... he corrected it about a sentence or two later.
Nevertheless, the smears have begun. I guess my take is summed up in the words of a commenter on another blog. He wrote:

Obama needs to stop fighting imaginary demons and figure out why he is slipping in the polls despite the landscape being as good as it gets for a democrat to take the White House.

I keep hearing these TV clips and YouTube clips of Obama summarizing the smears against him and then responding to these "imaginary demons". I wish he'd either stop this self-defeating practice. Or ... if he feels he must ... then he's got to start showing some real outrage. And don't just say he's outraged. He needs to get a little passionate about it.

It looks like I'm not the only one who's been pessimistic about the lackluster Obama campaign of late. Obama's been giving off-message, lackluster interviews. More Americans think McCain is going to win than think Obama's going to win. McCain might have a got a 10-point bounce after the convention. But what really gets me? The Obama ads have been dreadful. 
Nate at 538 raises tonight just this topic (see "Obama Needs Better Ads"). He writes:

One of the more disappointing elements of the Obama campaign has been their advertising, which has tended to focus on fairly conventional, 30-second, issue-based spots. Their ads have been neither creative nor attention-grabbing, in contrast to both their reputation for being a media-savvy campaign, and some of the relatively creative spots put together by the McCain team.

I suspect that the next 2-3 weeks are probably the most important point in the campaign for advertising. Once the debates begin, it will probably be too late to fundamentally redefine either the candidate's message or the opponent. And advertising is difficult in the two-week home stretch between the debates and the election, with campaigns usually constrained to conventional biographical spots or hail mary negative attacks. So now is the time for the Obama campaign to go all out and spend some of those hundreds of millions of dollars in donations they have collected.

I agree with Nate that the Obama campaign's advertising has been very disappointing and totally unmemorable. It's way past time to echo the campaign's "change" narrative ... or even to just educate voters on the campaign's stands on the issues. It's time for game-changing ads that redefine the race on terms more favorable to Obama.

Now I'm not an advertising guru, but I'll tell you what I thinkn would work. I think the Obama campaign needs to make PALIN the focus of a new negative advertising blitz. But I think it's wrong to try to criticize her on THE ISSUES. People don't love her because of her stands on the issues (well, pro-life Republicans excepted). People love her because they think she's a great, likeable, very attractive, very charismatic person with a great biography.  
Going after Palin on the issues will do nothing. The only effective anti-Palin ad is going to have to pull on a gut-level, emotional response. Obama has to be willing to smear her. But do it honestly. An honest smear, really. Obama has got to make voters dislike her. Or at least realize that voting for McCain-Palin would be a huge mistake. 
So here's the ad I'm recommending.

Sarah Palin has been an abysmal failure as a mayor and a shockingly incompetent mayor. Use characterizations of her record-- especially "incompetent" -- to raise doubts about her abilities. Go with the Lydia Green green. Tell them that Green is the leader of the Alaska state senate. Then quote Green saying: "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president? Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?" Then say: AND LYDIA GREEN IS A REPUBLICAN!!! 

A CITY BUDGET NIGHTMARE. HIGHER TAXES. SHE PUT BIG OIL COMPANIES AHEAD OF ALASKANS. SHE'S EVEN AGAINST POLAR BEARS. 

Then remind voters that McCain's the fool who picked her. And conclude with, "Is McCain a maverick or just reckless?"

Something like that. Anyone else got any advertising ideas?

I'm feeling rather worried tonight about Sarah Palin. I'm also worried that Obama is going to listen to the really awful advice that he should just ignore her and focus on McCain. Maybe that's what some of you think he should do, too. But I'm convinced this would be a major disaster.
I hear a lot of people both in the professional punditry and the blogosphere saying that Obama should bury his head in the sand and just ignore her. What awful advice! It seems blindingly obvious to me that for the next two weeks, Palin will be THE central issue. She will be THE new media star. Ignoring her will only make the Obama campaign seem out of touch, irrelevant, and even afraid to take her on. Ouch. 
That strategy couldn't be more wrong ... at least for the next two weeks.* The next two weeks give Obama the pivotal opportunity to define Palin for the country. If he misses this opportunity, it won't come again.
Camp Obama should instead seek to define Palin as a right-wing ideological extremist, an absolutely incompetent chief executive with a horrible track record in Alaska, and an all around dangerous candidate. Above all else DRIVE UP HER NEGATIVES.
Some will say that Obama should instead keep the focus on McCain. The problem is that there's no way in hell the media is going to let them. Their best bet is to attack McCain secondarily as the unpredictable, erratic, reckless, craps-playing fool who would even consider putting such a horrible candidate one heartbeat away from the presidency.

From what we've seen of Palin so far, the former beauty queen and television news sports anchorwoman is an enormously talented politician. From what I've read, it seems she's very intelligent and has cunning political instincts as well. Democrats should be afraid that come inauguration day this woman might be in a position to step into the presidency at any time, and would be first in line for the office if a 76-year-old McCain decides to serve only one term. 

President Palin? Please, God no. 

Bottom line: The conventional wisdom (ignore Palin) is wrong. It would be a serious mistake for the Obama campaign to ignore Palin. Instead, they should go negative, hit her, and hit her hard ... while they still have a chance to define her. Don't squander this opportunity to make the chance of a President Palin very unlikely.
* But honestly, who knows? That's why I'm only suggesting a strategy for the next two weeks. Then Obama will need to really assess the situation based on the facts on the ground. Are the attacks working? Is the media still Palin obsessed? Is Palin moving the polls, or has she become irrelevant? Perhaps at that time the Obama campaign will determine that it's time to ignore her and focus instead on McCain. But I think they would be very, very stupid to ignore this candidate.

I think it's quite reasonable to assume that Palin won't self-destruct. The media will surely set her expectations for the vice presidential debate so low that she can certainly memorize some talking points, have speech writers come up with lots of crowd-pleasing one-liners, and come out without too much damage. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if she's pronounced the winner by at least half the audience.