I'm reminded of the tack that Bush 41 took against Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton had legions of unsavory characters in his past and myriads of credibility issues. In the end it didn't matter. The economy was bad, and people wanted "change". So they voted for the young guy who said all the right nonsense. Of course, the addition of Perot in the race that year hurt Bush more than Clinton. It can be credibly argued that if it weren't for Ross Perot, Clinton would not have been elected in 1992.
The Perot factor aside, I still see a lot of similarities between this election and 1992. I remember volunteering at a Michigan Right to Life Get out the Vote phonathon. I was calling Michigan pro-life voters to get them to vote for Bush 41. Keep in mind: A) that Bush 41 had won Michigan in 1988 (riding on the huge coattails of Reagan and winning the support of Michigan's legendary Reagan Democrats) and B) that these were self-identified pro-life voters. After that night, I knew in my gut that the election was lost. One person after another told me that the economy was hurting so badly that they were going to vote for Clinton. Besides that, they didn't think Bush 41 was all that pro-life in the first place because look at that jerk Souter who he appointed to the Supreme Court.
That experience taught me two things. First, if the Republican Party ever abandons the pro-lifers, they can kiss goodbye any chance of winning a national election. Many blue collar conscientious values voters vote against their immediate economic interests in order to support pro-life Republicans. Second, I learned that when the economy is really really bad, these voters will find some way to bypass their consciences and vote for the Democrats or just sit the election out all together. They'll say, "he's not really all that pro-life anyway and besides, they'll never be able to overturn Roe, so what's the point?"
Bush 41 knew that he was losing on the economic issues to Clinton, and so the waning days of his campaign focused repeatedly on Clinton's character. I remember the TV ads in Michigan. Bush's ads were funny "you can't really trust him" spots with ordinary voters making pointed humorous comments about Clinton's used-car salesman persona. Clinton's ads were just the opposite. They were like the "Morning in America" ads -- one of them ended on a lovely image of a gun sitting on a tractor with a huge American flag behind him. They were all "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" feel good "Yes We Can" type of ads. They were very very effective. Look at the difference between McCain and Obama's ads. Obama is skating in on his "Hope" and "Yes We Can" b.s. McCain's ads come across as the South Park guys taking very humorous potshots at the Hope guy. Again, Bush 41 did the same thing to Clinton, and Bush 41's Clinton attack ads were funny too -- though not as funny as "The One" ad that McCain ran. In the end it didn't matter how funny or how incisive Bush 41's ads were. Clinton won by sailing over it all to victory. I'm afraid that we might be witnessing the same phenomenon in this election.
On a positive note, I don't think an Obama victory will irreparably harm the bright future that I hope and pray Sarah Palin will have in national politics. I have a funny feeling that the real battle in this election is between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. And if it's not resolved for once and for all on November 5th, it will be continued in 2012.
Couch it how you will; baffle the masses with erudite proof that all is lost; McCain/Palin are going to WIN THIS YEAR. Never mind 2012. The focus has to be on NOW... unless you’ve given up the fight, unless you want to ensure premature defeat, which it seems you have/do.