…the end of man is to know

Yes, yes I’m back…let’s spare the niceties.

Being a student at Northwestern, located deep in ObaManiac Headquarters, I’m trying to figure some stuff out. Namely, how on earth is Obama so damn good. The answer is that he has completely controlled political discourse, at least among 18-25 year olds. I ask why people support Obama and it’s all about “GDeorge W Bush’s failed policies”. Yea, I get that. The economy blows, Iraq was (probably) a mistake, Osama is still at large, and gays can’t marry (it’s not that I don’t think gay marriage in California or Massachusetts should be delegalized. It’s that I think anyone in California or Massachusetts should not be entitled to federal funding that results from marriage.). I won’t bother arguing whose fault it is. The, albeit correct, argument that Democrats are responsible for Fannie and Freddie mess is too indirect and convoluted to be effective. The argument that the surge has worked is irrelevant to those who opposed the war all along and think pre-emptive defeat is an adequate response to pre-emptive war.

McCain’s inability to find his message has kept dominated him. The only times he has surged in the polls were when he bashed Obama on being a celebrity over the summer and when he got Palin as his VP. It’s finding a message and delivering it. Since June we have seen: celebrity, foreign policy experience, maverick, Obama tied to Ayers, and now we get Joe the Plumber/taxes.

There are many roads to Rome (or the White House), but you have to actually take one. To borrow some of the brilliant Jay Cost’s analysis, I’d love to see McCain run this ad a lot more:

Weeks without a laptop and weeks into classes, I’ve been far too busy. As I sit in my Intro to Comparative Politics course, I was trolling through the internet and have read some deeply disturbing stuff.

First, Democratic schadenfraude needs to stop. I get it, the longer the bailout takes, the worse Bush (and the Republicans) look. Just compare the direct relationship between McCain’s poll numbers and the Dow Jones. It’s uncanny!

Second, Republicans need to get off their high-horse, and quickly. Just take the terms of the bailout and salvage the economy which is approaching free-fall. Though a bailout is still likely, the possibility of it not happening was worth 700 points in the stock market. I won’t guess what continued no votes are worth.

Many conservatives (namely, myself) believe that Iraq was a mistake, but McCain is still better than Obama on the Iraq issue. The past happened. The question is , “how can we best salvage the situation”. This is the EXACT inverse of the economy. Yes, the Democrats screwed up with their blind allegiance to Freddie and Fannie, but it doesn’t matter now. I’d love to see McCain throw up ads showing his opposition to blind lending and Obama’s support. In the interim, we still need to support a bailout. A trillion dollars of bad debt will cripple growth and send us back to the 1970s (or worse!). This need not “set a dangerous precedent” because this is the first time its happened. It also is likely to be the last full-scale bailout for quite some time. We had the largest bankrupcy of all-time in the past few months. The circumstances are very unique and we shouldn’t hide behind our fear of government control.

Conservatives can stand behind free-market ideals and support a bailout. The unfortunate fact of the matter of this: the government (and irrational consumers) got us into this mess and the government can get us out.

10. Sarah Palin has named her kids Bristol, Piper, Track, Willow, and Trig.

9. She has taken on corrupt Alaskan bureaucrats. She has angered Senator Ted Stevens and strongly supported her Lieutenant Governor’s bid to unseat 18-term congressman Don Young in the Republican Primary.

8. In light of McCain’s health problems: Sarah Palin runs marathons.

7. She is a moose hunter. Not a Bull-Moose hunter, but actual Moose. (Mooses? Meese? Moosen?)

6. Palin’s husband works as a commerical fisherman and is in a labor union…can’t much more blue-collar than that.

5. Palin’s husband is a champion snowmobile racer, winning the Tesoro Iron Dog, billed as the world’s longest snowmobile race, four times.

4. Her eldest son, Track, will be going to Iraq with the US Army next month, not unlike the other VP candidate

3. In 1984, Palin was named Miss Wasilla and runner-up as Miss Alaska.

2. Her youngest son, Trig, was born in April with Down’s Syndrome. Palin has made a point to talk about her son and her decision to not have an abortion despite knowing about Trig’s condition during pregnancy.

And….the best thing about Sarah Palin is:

Her parents were called this morning by their son-in-law to listen to the radio for a special announcement. They almost missed hearing about their daughter’s VP nomination because they were *drumroll* CARIBOU HUNTING.

Lest there be no doubt: the GOP has returned to the party of small government, increased transparency, and support the working-class!

McCAIN-PALIN 2008!

YES HE CAN! YES SHE CAN! YES THEY CAN!

Alaska, one of the reddest of red states, is now going to turn blue in 2 key races this November. Why? Because Alaskan Republicans are so close-minded and loyalist that they nominated two sitting ducks.

In the Senate race, Republican Ted Stevens is facing jail time over corruption charges. This after he has been widely ridiculed for being too old and too out of touch. Suggesting that the internet is a “series of tubes” certainly didn’t help. Naturally, Stevens won his primary last night with over 63% of the vote. Most Alaskan Republicans think that a potential criminal is the best representative of their party.

Stevens is trailing Democratic opponent, MarkBegich, by 13 points. Race over. Give the seat to the Dems right now, electoral projectors.

In the house race (note: Alaska only has one House seat due to its low population), reformer Sean Parnell trails old party hack, Don Young by a 1,000 votes with only 9 precincts remaining. This may need a recount, but this race should not have been close. Parnell is the Lieutenant Governor under the EXTREMELY popular Sarah Palin. He has fought to clean up Alaskan government and has served on multiple committees in the Alaska Legislature. Don Young is an 18-term congressman (yes, 18 terms. He has been in congress almost as long as William Ayers has been a terrorist!). He has engaged in a few shady, but not illegal, dealings. He is a typical do-nothing bureaucrat. While Parnell received endorsments from the National Review, Club for Growth, and Governor Palin, Don Young’s sole endorsement was from Mike Huckabee’s PAC. When two legitimate, conservative organizations and a highly popular governor support taking an incumbent out in a primary, that should have been a signal to Alaskan Republicans. Instead, they were sheep-like in their biannual support of Young.

If Alaskan Republicans are a microcosm, the GOP is in serious trouble. The party has lost the spirit and enthusiasm of 1994. Party loyalists and hacks are being prepared for the slaughter at the hands of power-hungry Democrats, moderates, and disaffected conservatives.

We need to look at candidates and then make decisions. Candidates define parties, not the other way around! If this means voting for a small-government, libertarian Democrat, so be it. This is not about getting 537 (435 in house, 100 in senate, and 2 in White House) people with an “R” affixed to their name on C-SPAN broadcasts. This is about getting 537 people who support freedom, liberty, and the American way. Democrats have never understood that concept. I’m starting to fear we don’t anymore.

Edit: This post has been edited for better accuracy. However, I will not mention the name of the insignificant Democratic House candidate. He is of no consequence since a competent Republican could easy trounce any Democrat and any competent Democrat will trounce Don Young.

My sincere apologies for not being able to live blog last night. I really wanted to, but my computer crashed late Monday night and the computer I borrowed last night could not access the wireless in my house. So as bad as you felt for not being having my live blog, trust me I felt worse. When work is the only place you have internet access, you know you’ve fallen on hard times.

Anyway, yesterday was supposed to be the day to bash McCain. There was a list of Democratic governors and no-names trying to make a name for themselves. The hit squad was sent out in full-force. The only two non-primetime speakers worth mentioning are NY Governor David Paterson and Dennis Kucinich. Paterson came up with, “If the answer is John McCain, the question is ridiculous”. Paterson, a blind African-American, is uniquely positioned to talk about the rights of the disabled. He cites the unemployment of the deaf to be near 90% and the blind to be 70%. Now if the answer is John McCain, and the question is Which candidate believes in not coddling the disadvantaged and encouraged people to go to work, it no longer sounds ridiculous. It might be worth mentioning that Paterson fell into his post because his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer failed to see the irony, hypocrisy, or humor in an anti-corruption specialist sneaking off to be with a high-class prostitute and resigned.

Kucinich was typical Kucinich. He looks exactly like Gollum, from Lord of the Rings, and makes about as much sense. He is off-the-reservation liberal, but amuses Republicans and Democrats, alike.

But the night belonged to Hillary and Mark Warner.

Mark Warner was tremendously boring. He only talked about himself. We’re not sure why he didn’t run for president, but he seems to be readying for a 2012 campaign. As a moderate, he couldn’t pretend to bash the Republicans who he votes with so frequently. He stuck to the tenor of bipartisanship and general support for American prosperity. His support of Barack Obama in particular was lukewarm at best. All in all, it was a huge missed opportunity. Warner made himself look like a greedy, spotlight-stealing windbag. Only slightly different from the young star who gave the keynote address at the 2004 DNC…except Warner isn’t a good speaker and failed to inject himself into the national spotlight the way Obama did.

And so we come to Hillary. Though I am no Clinton backer, I will give the hil-dog her due. She was great. She was strong, powerful, engaging, and still maintained the slight femininity about her. It may have been the best I have ever seen. She went for her tried-and-true tactic of telling a sappy tale about poverty and hit on women’s issues well. Her bashing of McCain was noticable, but not excessive. In short, Hillary gave the same speech she would have had she won the Democratic nomination. She hardly mentioned Obama. When she did say that she supported Obama, she did in the context of Democratic policies. She never said anything about why Obama in particular deserves your vote. She simply hammered home the Democratic agenda in delicious vagaries and asserted her role in that process as a Senator and as a presidential candidate. I don’t know what Clinton fans are thinking and I am not sure that Hillary did drive them to Obama. Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. But she certainly held back and never addressed her main argument against Obama: inexperience. She had a chance to recant that attack, and she didn’t. Presumably, her main point of opposition against Obama stays. And that could be politically damaging, if exploited properly.

Yet, as I went to bed, I had a sense of relief. Given the 10% edge that generic Demcrats have over generic Republicans, I know that Hillary would have won this race. She does enough things right and has mild enough flaws as a campaigner, that she couldn’t lose. Obama is enough of a gamble, that he could lose this race, which was thought to be impossible by most pollsters a few months ago.

And as Democratic strategists went back to their hotel rooms in Denver last night, there is no doubt they were thinking, “Oh my god. We’re nominating the wrong candidate.”

Despite being John F Kennedy 2.0 (or so we’re told), Barack Obama makes a few too many mistakes. And by “mistakes” I don’t mean calling Pennsylvanians desperate voters who cling to guns and religion. I mean actual mistakes. Things that he doesn’t believe in, but inadvertently says or suggests.

For whatever reason, Barack seriously struggles with the locations of his speeches. Last night he did it again, unclear which city in Missouri he was in (hint: there are only two! it’s 50/50, Barack!) Here a few of his recent missteps:

1. Joe Biden will be elected president (interesting)

2. Obama visits 57 states (Heinz varieties or US states…they’re so damn similar!)

2A. Eau Claire, Wisconsin is actually a state…(does this count to the 57 or is it the missing 58th?)

3. Obama’s uncle liberates Auschwitz (actually, Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets and Obama’s mother never had a brother. So an imaginary uncle joined the Red Army. Somehow, I’m not surprised)

4. Obama on Iraq (Not even Two-Face could make heads or tails of this one)

5. Last night, Obama couldn’t decide if he’s in St. Louis or Kansas City (note: he needs his daughter to ask him what city he is in so he can get his facts right). I’m not sure which I’m more concerned about: Barack taking advice from Michelle or Barack NEEDING advice from a 7 year old.

6. Obama suggests that having a baby is a punishment (Some parents ground their kids. Others use spanking. Barack forces pregnancy)

7. Obama makes myriad “mistakes” and suggests he is not ready to run for president in 2008

I think I finally figured it all out: it’s because his name isn’t really Barack OBAMA. It’s actually:

I come bringing wondrous news: BARACK OBAMA BRINGS CHANGE! Change! If you don’t like high oil prices, Obama will change them! Lost your job? Change the economic situation! Think that the public campaign system should be altered? Change!

It’s Change, y’all! How can you not want change! Everyone wants change! Barack Obama and panhandlers agree: Change is good.

One small hitch: change doesn’t mean progress. It doesn’t mean improvement. It definitely doesn’t mean prosperity.

Joe Biden never got the message. In this “welcome video“, he seems ridiculous. The same man who said that Barack was not ready to lead as recently as this past winter, now joins The Movement. He speaks to Obamaniacs as an outsider. He knows that he was not part of The Movement. He has been in the Senate since Barry was in Hawai’i. He is part of the big, bad political machine that Obama wants to tear down. He does all but apologize at the altar of Change and beg for forgiveness. He praises Obama’s parishioners and congratulates them. He then asks that they accept him as one of their own.

How does he do it? He calls on Change. Eight times in 2 minutes and 57 seconds he says “change”!

This clip is proof-positive that Obama is completely out of touch with mainstream America. He picks a moderate liberal with a ton of experience and this guy is the outsider. Joe Biden, Mr. American politics, has never been an outsider. He offers a solid balance of relative youth and experience, foreign policy and domestic policy. He is from Delaware, a state that doesn’t conjure up any negative images. THe fact that Obama’s campaign is so radically left and so unapologetically “grassroots” makes Biden the annoying step-father who you have to obey to get what you want but don’t actually respect.

Though I am no Biden supporter, I feel awful for him. A proud, distinguished senator is being emasculated by a young upstart with a fresh face and smooth speaking-style. Biden is put in the position of being forced to renounce his past so that he become a full-fledged member of Change.

So there it is. Obama-Biden 2008.

Biden might make an Obama administration more tolerable (I can’t help but giggle thinking about Biden telling Obama, “Barack, you can’t give up the seat on the UN Security to Kenya. You can’t do this!”). However, it doesn’t make Obama more electable.

The GOP has been red hot with the accusations that Obama has his head in the clouds AND is becoming a “washington insider”. So what does Obama do? He brings on a guy who has said that Obama lacks the experience the lead an is the ultimate washington insider. Good job, guys.

In case you’re interested, here’s an illustrious of comments that Joe Biden will regret

It’s baaaaack.

Useless News & World Distort has released its annual college rankings today. From the very top to the very bottom, all schools deeply care about how they are ranked. A simple move of 2 or 3 spots brings tears of pain or tears of joy. It has become the measuring stick for comparing schools. High-achieving students will decide which schools to apply to, and attend, based largely on the rankings. Without further ado, the top 25:

1. Harvard

2. Princeton

3. Yale

4. MIT & Stanford

6. Cal Tech & UPenn

8. Columbia, Duke, & UChicago

11. Dartmouth

12. Northwestern (w00t w00t!) & Wash U in St. Louis

14. Cornell

15. Johns Hopkins

16. Brown

17. Rice

18. Emory, Notre Dame, & Vanderbilt

21. UC-Berkeley

22. Carnegie Mellon

23. Georgetown & University of Virginia

25. UCLA

Here’s the USNWR formula (and my assessment of the quality of each factor):

25%: Peer Assessment

P.A. is the most weighted factor and asks universities officials to rank other schools on a scale from 1 to 5. How fitting that the dumbest metric has the most importance. If you ask Northwestern what it thinks about Wash U, it is in its best interest to give a very low score. There is no reason to help out the competition, right? Worse, since the schools are distributed randomly, Northwestern is more likely to judge Purdue, SW Missouri State, Bowdoin, and Berea. How in the world can anyone intelligently grade those schools? University officials deal with their own university and the immediate competition. Worse, scoring from 1 to 5 makes each point needlessly important. At what point does a a 3 become a 4? Small scales only serve to accentuate and exacerbate the most minute of differences. Small differences turn out huge on the assessment, but big differences can be muted if one school is a 3.6 and the other is a 4.4. I won’t even touch the hypocrisy of objectively rating schools with a measure as subjective as this. Is there a bell curve? Doubtful.

20% Retention

16% goes to 6-year graduation rate and 4% to freshman retention rate. I like the idea of schools graduating their students. However, 6 years is far too high. The issue is not how soon I can get out of school (students often co-op and take 5 years minimum), the issue is if I graduate with a good degree and great memories. Therefore, I reluctantly accept this metric, but would like to see more emphasis on freshman retention and less on graduation.

20% Faculty Resources (6% is percentage of classes with less than 20 students, 2% is pecentage of classes with more than 50 students, 7% is faculty pay, 3% is percentage of faculty with highest degree, 1% is student:faculty ratio, 1% is percent of faculty who are fulltime)

Again, this is a well-intended portion of the formula. Students to learn better in smaller class environments. Professors generally are better when they are well-paid, have the highest degree, and are fulltime. However, there are loads of exceptions. First, some classes shouldn’t be small. Intro to Microeconomics need not be a 15 person seminar. Intro to Sociology does not require constant class discussion. Moreover, most universities have discussion sections, which allow students to meet in 15-20 people groups to discuss course material with a Teacher’s Assistant.

Also, professors’ success is not always based on money, tenure, and degrees held. Good professors get paid more, not the other way around. Throwing money at faculty helps the rankings, but might build complacency. Some of the best professors I have had are not full-time. Some professors are visiting from another university or simply a guest lecturer. Spending a career in academia makes you an academic. Sometimes having a professor with very different life experiences and interpretation of course material can be extremely gratifying. That said, I again accept the USNWR’s need for uniformity.

15% Student Selectivity (7.5% ACT/SAT score of enrollees, 6% is the amount of students who graduated in the top 10% of their class, 1.5% is the acceptance rate)

This is the best metric in the whole damn rankings. Students with good grades and high standardized test scores make a university more challenging. A key part of college is learning from fellow classmates. Therefore, your potential classmates should be as hard-working, tracked by grades, and innately intelligent, tracked by test scores, as possible. Also, a low acceptance rate suggests that the college is highly sought after. Yes, SAT scores aren’t the be-all-and-end-all, top 10% of the class requires different levels of intellect depending on the high school attended, and some schools have high acceptance rates because they self-select (think: BYU only attracts mormon applicants). However, the biggest flaw in this part of the equation is that weighs too little. Smart kids create smart universities. Simple.

10% Financial Resources

This counts university spending per student on academic resources. It intentionally does not count sports and dorms. However, I think it should. A university that drops millions on the football team is offering a great service to the student body. During the fall, I have the opportunity and privilege of seeing my Northwestern Wildcats play Big 10 football. We aren’t the best, but we frequently get on television, draw big crowds, and play the best teams in the country. This is a tremendous asset, as it builds school spirit and provides great on-campus events. Homecoming just means a bit more when it is followed by a football game. Tailgates, pregame activities, postgame activities, and sports all have left an indellible mark on my college experience. Dorms also are important. I want to live in a well-maintained dorm with good facilities and large living space. Those who live in small quarters with leaky faucets struggle. College is a LIVING-learning environment. It’s unfortunate that USNWR forgets that most students live on the university.

5% Graduation rate performance

This one is by far the weirdest. It looks at the proportion of students receiving Pell grants and their test scores and predicts what the graduation rate should be. Whether or not, and by how much, a university outperforms/underperforms the “expectation” is this variable. It’s way complicated and I don’t like statistics with variables I don’t have access to. I like the thought process, because universities that take low-income, low-achievers and help them graduate should be rewarded. However, the low-income student who gets a Pell grant to go to Harvard is probably self-motivated enough to graduate, regardless of what the stats say.

5% Alumni giving rate

This one is by far the dumbest stat. The percentage of living alumni that give to the university is too manipulable. For example, Northwestern offers free events to graduating seniors in the week preceding commencement. However, you must donate $20.08 (creative, no?) to the alumni fund to get access. Formals, free beer, and trips to Six Flags cost well more than the donation, but it is NU’s way of gaming the system. It sets up the events at a huge loss to boost alumni giving rates and, maybe, to send seniors out on a high note. And I seriously doubt that the folks up in Evanston are the first ones to figure out how to game the system.

So there it all is. That’s the big, scary US News and World Report College ranking methodology. Let me lament on how sad of all of this. As a Northwestern Tour Guide, I waited on pins and needles for the rankings to come out. I desperately wanted to know how we stacked up and if we improved. I shouldn’t care, though. I should sell prospective students and their bankrolling parents on strong academics, numerous extra-curriculars, and a great living-learning environment. Unfortunately, I know that many on the tour are only visiting because they want to go to a top __ school. It’s horribly sad and reflects poorly on us. We are so status-driven that we are willing to let our college decisions be based on a shoddy formula. What university you attend can be one of the most important life decisions. It sets up your academic perspective, offers a wealth of experiences, fosters great friendships, and is the setting for countless mistakes that can only be made on a college campus.

To the fact that high school seniors will let a crappy news magazine dictate how they spend 4 years of the life, I respond, “NO ‘EFFING WAY”.

To the fact that USNWR has built a monopoly on understanding American universities, I find it to be Pragmatically Political (or Economic…but I’m not changing my user name for those bastards)

Two months ago, this race was absolutely over. McCain trailed by double digits and electoral projections had Obama winning by roughly 75 electoral votes. Virginia was undoubtedly blue, Georgia was a serious toss-up, and Badlands region was under attack. Over the summer, John McCain has completely turned this race on its head. The south is unquestionably Republican. The Badlands have been saved. Alaska is firmly Red. Virginia is thrown back into the toss-up. Florida is leaning slightly to the GOP. In fact, RealClear Politics actually has McCain ahead in the electoral college! While Republicans dance in the street, the real question is HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

It is only through understanding, and my glorious collection of past posts, that we continue the McCain Train.

A few thoughts:

1.The GOP has turned a debate on how to fix the economy into a debate on oil prices. Offshore oil drilling has been a diamond in the rough. It sat undiscussed for years and was dug up at the most opportune time. The Republicans are correct. Increasing the supply of oil and stifling oil speculators which are driving up prices is not partisan. It is not ideological. It is fact. John McCain is on the correct side of the issue and Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are too wrapped up in their own ideological bubble to get out of their own way.

1A. My concern is that if oil prices come down, the economy may still slump. Poor investments and the housing bubble are not the GOP’s or Democrats’ fault. They are the fault of the Fed, the global economy, congressional protection of Fannie and Freddie, and the American people. Yes, we are to blame. We have too many damn credit cards, buy too much house, and save too little. If those failures are seen as the real problems, voters may turn misplaced anger at McCain. So we need the Democrats to keep being obstinate on oil…at least until Election Day.

2. I won’t say that war is good, but the conflict in Georgia made foreign policy an issue again. Hillary’s 3AM advertisement almost doomed Obama in Texas and Ohio. Luckily for him, he was so far ahead in delegate counts at that point that it just didn’t matter. McCain actually got the 3 AM ad in real life. President Bush did get the unexpected surprise about the Russian invasion. He did have to make hard choices and he does have to sort it through with the rest of the world. Not just did the issue help, but the responses did, as well. McCain was on-point and able to flaunt his credentials. Obama seemed lost and unwilling to take a stand (Barack afraid to make a choice? NO ‘EFFIN WAY!)
2A. This issue doesn’t have enough legs to get to November. It will slip to the back pages of newspapers behind the Olympics, the Conventions, and Labor Day grillfests. I certainly don’t hope for another international conflict, but McCain must continue to invoke Georgia. He doesn’t need another 9/11 to remind Americans that security is important. The troop surge has worked, he has experience, and he rhetorically crushed Obama when both faced an international crisis.

3. McCain beat Obama at Saddleback. For anyone who doesn’t have Obamania, McCain crushed Obama. The disparity was so bad that Team Obama needed to allege that McCain cheated. When a presidential candidate starts accusing the other of cheating in a forum that took place in a church of all places, it’s getting ugly. I have said this for a while, but McCain is better off-the-cuff. His maverick style plays well and he doesn’t have a problem engaging with people. His life story is remarkable. Obama’s? Not so much. His written speeches are, unfortunately, phenomenal. There is no doubt that he is a great orator. However, he gets into trouble when he doesn’t have a teleprompter. The “bitter” comment came off-the-cuff. His reponse to Georgia was unprepared. His suggestion that abortion is “above his pay grade” clearly was poorly rehearsed.

3A. Rick Warren wasn’t the most objective interviewer. While he asked fair questions identically to each candidate, the emphasis on values in a Christian setting will always favor the Republican. Formal debates will allow Barack to give his scripted responses, in all of their rhetorical glory, behind a podium. However, McCain isn’t afraid of Obama the way Hillary was. He knows that he can beat this young upstart on even ground. And, as the American people repeatedly prove, confidence is everything in presidential debates.

4. The mastermind. De facto campaign manager Steve Schmidt has been phenomenal since taking over for Rick Davis. Under Davis, McCain’s people were largely decentralized and granted a great deal of autonomy. Staffers couldn’t stay on-message because the message changed from day-to-day, office-to-office. Obama wasn’t being attacked and continued to showcase his best attribute, not talking about the issues. In early July, the campaign let Schmidt take over day-to-day operations. Since then, the campaign has been a well-oiled machine. The message was consolidated: McCain has experience and Obama doesn’t know how to lead. The oil drilling issue was all McCain would talk about for weeks. The campaign also used Obama’s celebrity, a huge asset, into a weakness.

So do you want to know why McCain has made a comeback? Because Steve Schmidt turned this:

into this:.