You’ve (maybe) read the first draft. Now the not-all-that-different rewrite is in the issue of Time with the fat kid on the cover and online here. It begins:
When Barack Obama says a John McCain Administration would amount to a third term of George W. Bush, he’s not just blowing smoke, especially when it comes to economic policy. Yes, McCain is a very different kind of man, with a different history, who will face a set of challenges and opportunities that are different from those confronting Bush. But look through the Republican candidate’s campaign pledges on the economy, and you’ll see that they really do add up to a continuation of Bush’s focus on cutting taxes (especially taxes on corporate and capital income) and moving economic decisions (and burdens) into the hands of individuals.
The McCain camp has responded to Obama’s digs by trying to link Obama to Bush (because both are supposedly big spenders) and to Jimmy Carter (because both are supposedly big taxers). It’s hard to see either parallel sticking, though–the first is too ridiculous, and the second is too dated. If this election becomes a referendum on the economy and Bush’s handling of it, Obama wins and McCain loses. It’s as simple as that.
The question, then, is whether Obama can turn the election into such a referendum. The economy appears to be doing what it can to help, with the minirevival of April and May giving way to less encouraging data. But Obama’s campaign has never really been about people’s pocketbooks. That was more Hillary Clinton’s thing. Now, with Clinton finally out of the picture, the presumptive Democratic candidate is trying to make up for lost time with a two-week campaign swing through battleground states like North Carolina, Missouri and Ohio, talking about the economy at every stop. That’s smart. But if Obama’s early speeches are any indication, his reinvention of himself as the economy candidate is not going to be a slam dunk. Read more.
So which version do you like better?