There is a real problem with both candidates' "plans" and "attacks." Neither understands the most basic aspect of this problem.

I live near Chicago. Back in the day, the city had lots of tenement slums, but not enough habitable living. Next came the "projects" to replace the tenements, along with white flight. In the past 10 years, the unsightly projects have all been torn down. Yet, the poor people remain.

So, what to do? The government could have spent $500 billion 10 years ago to build new government housing. Or, it could have spent $500 billion to buy up the old stock of housing left behind by suburbanites. Or, it could have set aside $500 billion for rent vouchers, leaving slum lords to own the homes.

Or -- and this is the genius of American deferral at work -- you could throw all of these people into the public/private mortgage market, let them flail about for several years with adjustable rate mortgages and exorbitant fees, and then, finally, spend $500 billion to bail the lenders out and start the process over.

Here is the real humor, in watching the candidates "debate" the solution. The solution has already occurred. Fannie and Freddy were restocked and reloaded more than a month ago to start the process over, because the country still has no desire to front load its expenditure on public housing.

Which candidate would be better? It is like grading a Spanish test, where one student writes in French and the other in German. Unfortunately, politics is a zero sum game: you can't flunk them both.

The MSM has also been observing Palin's supposed decline. However, Rasmussen recently noted she still has 40% "very favorable" -- higher than any of the other three candidates. And, in a hypothetical presidential match-up with Joe Biden yesterday, Palin would win by about 3 points.

It is somewhat amusing, at least to me, that the Washington Post in particular has devoted itself almost exclusively for two weeks to lurid headlines about Palin, suggesting she slashed, hacked, and crippled her opponents (the fine print often revealing that she cut someone's budget by one or two per cent), with the rest of the MSM picking up the trail. Now, after ripping her for two weeks and finding a mild setoff in her numbers (again, still leaving her safely above the other three), the new story line is her supposed "fall."

I watched the ad last night for the first time. To me, the message seemed to be:

"Attention Hispanics. Beware: there are rich white guys out there with proverbial top hats and cigars (Limbaugh and McCain, to name just two) who loathe your existence and would push you out of the country if they could. Ergo, vote for your non-Waspy friend, Obama."

Now, is that offensive? On one hand, it is distinguishable from the proto-527 groups who helped the likes of Wallace back in the 60s, because there an appeal was made to the dominant group (whites) to turn against the weaker group (blacks). Here, the appeal is made to an ostensibly weaker group (Hispanics) to turn against a stronger group (rich whites).

In sum, Limbaugh isn't telling the whole story, when he compares the two cases. But, he is right that both involve fear mongering based on racial characteristics. Indeed, the excerpted reference to "stupid Mexicans" proves this point. Obama is clearly saying, "indignant Mexican-Americans, unite!"

Nixon did the same thing, back in '64, actively campaigning for Goldwater even as he hoped for his defeat. Nixon was very clever. Upon returning from a European trip in the summer of '64, he lamented to reporters that the Europeans viewed Goldwater as a total dunce and warmonger, and Nixon explained that he tried hard to convince them otherwise. The point being: Nixon wished to plant poisonous seeds against Goldwater, even while ostensibly defending him.

Clinton's task is easier because she has Bill, as her alter ego, to dump on Obama from time to time in the press. Bill can be her dark side of Nixon, while she gets to be the light one, pressing ever forward on Obama's behalf.

Two quick points.

First, a single answer does not a campaign make. Let's not forget Obama's reference to 57 states, his confession of his Muslim ... er, Christian, faith to George Stephanopolis, and of course, his tribute to the more than 15,000 people killed in a tornado which wiped out an entire midwestern town (actually casualties: fewer than 5).

Second, I am not sure Palin is contending that ANWR oil would be set aside exclusively for domestic consumption, as a matter of law. I think the logic here is that it would be a worldwide commodity, but much of it would probably be used domestically in the U.S. simply based on ease of transport.

I suppose you could fault McCain for some hyperbole here, or Palin for giving a less that clear answer. But again, if we are going to judge her campaign based on this, we also need to sew those extra seven stars into the flag, find a Koran for Barack's inauguration, and build some sort of memorial for those 15,000 tornado victims.

Yes, I concede it is possible that Hillary is acting out of altruistic support for Obama, not cynical self-interest. But let me pose a different angle, from the voters' perspective. I know some very strong Democrats who are considering voting for McCain/Palin because they think (i) it is the best way to set up a Hillary candidacy in 2012; (ii) get the first woman VP in there immediately; and (iii) muddle along for four years with a semi-centrist agenda that in all events will have to be coordinated with a Democratic Congress. These Democratic women also believe a vote for Obama means no woman on either ticket for at least eight years -- contra their very strong preference in this year's primaries.

So, if there is nothing unpatriotic or cynical about the voters making such a calculation, there is nothing inherently wrong, in my mind, for Hillary to do the very same thing.