There may yet be another twist in the "tale" of this election campaign. After Sarah Palin's eruption upon the scene, it seemed that we were set for a contest of personae: the old maverick and his hockey-mom deputy vs. the cerebral orator and the feisty political veteran. Issues would take a back seat to personality. An election that promised much more would be drained to the dregs of its substance.
At least this week, the collapse of Lehman Brothers will push the economy in particular, and "issues" in general, to centre stage, playing squarely into the hands of the Democrats. Obama can argue - as he was quick to do - that eight years of failed Republican administration and oversight precipitated the subprime disaster. Such steelier rhetoric suits the changing tenor of his campaign, which has left the airy promise of "Change We Can Believe In" for the grittier "Change We Need".
McCain continues to insist that the economy remains "fundamentally strong" despite the crisis. For all his argument's intellectual merits, its pleading tone will do little to calm jittery nerves. As David Brooks noted recently, the Republican commitment to "old economics" (and not simply "old politics") remains a major stumbling block between McCain and the White House. Obama's righteous indignation better appeals to public anxiety.
Electoral politics is always a war of managed impressions, but at least the state of the economy is something tangible, something pressing. Palin's entry into the campaign revealed the horrifying, race-tinged hypocrisy that persists in US media and society (if you're raised by your grandparents in Hawaii, you're "exotic"; if you grew up eating mooseburgers in Alaska, you're quintessentially American). The Republicans know that their best chance for victory lies in the emphasis of such empty distractions. Can the Obama campaign capitalise on the media's shifting attention?