From TIME's Amy Sullivan:

Like Jon Chait, I grew up in a Michigan family that has only every purchased cars from American automakers. When Chrysler was in serious trouble in the 1980s, my mom declared that it was our family duty to help out Lee Iacocca, and by God, over the next ten years we bought a string of identically crappy Plymouth Horizons.

In the 1990s, I briefly worked for a Michigan congressman who couldn't forbid his staff from buying foreign cars, but did decree that only American cars could be parked in the allotted congressional parking spots. In one local congressional primary race, the question of whether a candidate had once rented a foreign car became the deciding campaign issue. And every time I go home, I can drive miles without passing a foreign car while at the same time discovering new Ford and GM models that I'm pretty sure aren't even sold in other arts of the country (Ford Probe, anyone?)

Which is all just to say that this new Obama ad, currently airing in Michigan, could be very effective:

It's heavy-handed, exploits protectionist impulses, and makes no sense outside of Michigan. But it will resonate around the Motor City.

The presidential nominees delivered statements and held dueling (and brief) press conferences this afternoon to discuss the Bush Administration's bailout plan. Both candidates spoke about the need to do something, and to do it quickly. And both said similar things about the the need for the plan to provide more oversight and to prevent CEOs of troubled firms to walk away with millions while taxpayers foot the bailout bill. But neither drew a line in the sand saying one principle or another was so important to him that he would vote against a bill that did not honor it.

Why so much caution and reticence from both Obama and McCain? Because however imperfect the ultimate bailout bill is, neither wants to be tagged as the key killer vote if the bill fails and the markets go into free fall. Unless, of course, the other guy votes no, too. Which is why the odds of Obama and McCain voting the same way seem so much greater than the odds that one votes yes and the other votes no. The same holds on the question of whether either of them would actually skip the vote because of Friday's presidential debate. Either both skip, or both vote. Hard to see a split. (In the end, I think they both hold their nose, turn up and vote for whatever is on the table come Friday.)

McCain has a new ad (see below) attacking Obama "and his liberal allies" for failing to lead in the midst of the current financial markets crisis. As many have noted, including George Will and the Wall Street Journal, McCain's own handling of the crisis has hardly been a profile in leadership. But what's important about this ad is not its claims about McCain but its line of attack on Obama. Why? Because it's entirely within bounds. As I and others have said in criticizing some of the McCain campaign's false or distorted assaults on Obama, there are plenty of potential Obama weaknesses that McCain can fairly and legitimately try to exploit.

- First and foremost, of course, is experience. McCain has more, Obama has relatively little. Whether that matters to you as a voter, or whether you think McCain's experience has been good or bad for the country, the fact is that it's fair for McCain to criticize Obama's lack of it.

- Second, it is irrefutably true that Obama hails from the solidly liberal tradition within the Democratic Party. He speaks eloquently about transcending partisanship, but his record of doing so -- both in Illinois and in Washington -- is fairly limited. And most of his policy proposals can be described as liberal or progressive. And so it is certainly fair for McCain to say that if Obama wins, "liberals" will be in charge of the House, Senate and the White House. I am not saying that would be bad or good for the country, or that such an attack would persuade swing voters in this cycle. But I am saying that it is entirely fair for McCain to attack Obama on this front -- i.e., to go back to the old GOP well and warn about scary liberals and big government.

The point is that there are stark substantive differences between these two candidates. Sticking to those differences as they launch their attacks is the honorable way to campaign.

Here's the McCain ad:

Over at TAPPED, Dana Goldstein has an account of a fascinating interview with Bill Clinton on what happened in the 90s that contributed to this crisis, as well as what didn't:

"I have thought about that," Clinton told me when I asked whether he was reconsidering any of the deregulatory economic policies his administration pursued under Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Earlier this year, Rubin downplayed the extent of the mortgage crisis, and implied more of the blame could be placed on American consumers than on the excesses of Wall Street. But Clinton's assessment was quite different.

"I actually called Bob Rubin," Clinton said, relaying their recent conversation about what could or should have been done differently during the 1990s to help prevent today's crisis. Clinton said he has two regrets: First, not pursuing more aggressively an aborted attempt to provide stricter oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to Clinton, the move was stymied by Democratic and Republican members of Congress and by mayors, who saw the lending giants as "the New Jerusalem" and "pure" because of their role in increasing homeownership to historic levels. But "it just didn't feel good," Clinton said of Fannie and Freddie's outsized political influence.

Clinton also said he should have subjected derivative trading to more public oversight. "We would have failed, but at least we could've sounded the alarm."

One policy Clinton said he doesn't regret is his 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which, for the first time since the Depression, allowed commercial banks to engage in investment-banking activities. Clinton said the commercial banks were an important moderating force on the risk-taking of the big investment firms that collapsed this week. "In the case of the current crisis, I believe the bill I signed allowed Bank of America to take over Merrill Lynch," he said.

Our colleague Justin Fox is live blogging the Senate Banking Committee hearing I'm at this morning on Capitol Hill. The main attractions are Paulson, Bernanke and Chris Cox. So far, the most colorful moment came before the hearing started when Code Pink – an anti-war group that haunts congressional hearings – heckled Senators Casey, Hagel and Reed before the hearing started. “Stop bailing out billionaires and bailout our troops!”

Also, Mike Enzi had, I think, the one populist moment of his career when he admonished that Congress should help “Main Street, not because the federal government is being held hostage by Wall Street,” and the audience broke into the only applause of the morning, prompting a stern warning from Chairman Dodd.

They were never really going to compete in 50 states, but the changes also whittle down the number of swing states where Obama's playing. Back in June, when Plouffe laid out his strategy they said they would compete in as many as 25 states – given their advertising priorities that list has dwindled to 17 at best. Almost uniformly, the GOP's response to Obama's ground game is: quality versus quantity. The GOP spokesman in both Ohio and North Dakota told me that Obama's canvassers are mostly college kids. That's all right, an Obama spokesman fired back, that's a criticism they've heard before.

With all the economic news, foreign policy has slipped below the radar screen, but a hat tip to Josh Marshall for linking to this report about the rather incredible show put on by two of McCain's foreign policy advisers at a weekend retreat sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East policy:

[Max] Boot called the Bush administration's renewed efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian talks a mistake.
He also cast Israel's talks with Syria as betraying the stake that the United States has invested in Lebanon's fragile democracy.

"John McCain is not going to betray the lawfully elected government of Lebanon," Boot said.

[Richard] Williamson was slightly more nuanced in addressing the issue of how the message would be sent.

"Israel should not be dictated to in dealing with Syria or dealing with Lebanon," he said, addressing Israeli and some pro-Israel resentment in recent years at pressure by the Bush administration to stifle such negotiations. "Hopefully as friends they will listen to us."

So the neoconservatives know what's best for Israel better than the Israelis do.

McCain's radicalism on this issue has been a poorly kept secret--but his views clearly mirror the desires of extremists like McCain's Vegas fundraiser, Sheldon Adelson, who opposes a two-state solution...and he seems to have decided to align himself with the out-of-power Likud party on the Syrian negotiations. Williamson's formulation is appropriate, if wrong-headed, but what is to be said of Boot? Israel is a democracy. We have no business strong-arming this ally. Israel's duly elected government--and, from my own conversations, it's military and foreign policy establishment--all see great potential advantages in talking to the Syrians.

There would also be great advantage to the United States, and the middle east region, if Israel and Syria could cut a deal: it would be a major blow to Iran and its Hizballah proxies (the very fact that Syria and Israel are talking undercuts Iran's fierce anti-Israel pose). The talks certainly should be pursued--and encouraged by the United States. It is long past time, for example, that we returned our Ambassador, Margaret Scobie, to post in Damascus.

The sheer arrogance of the McCain position is stunning; his inability to separate himself from the neoconservative extremists on any foreign policy issue raises major questions about his alleged foreign policy expertise. And, once again, it should be made clear this Likudnik-neoconservative tendency represents the thinking of a small minority of American Jews.

Update: Several commenters are pursuing a disingenuous argument: "But Joe, I thought you believed that Jewish neoconservatives always supported the Israel government..." Sorry, but nope: My argument is that a small group of American Jewish neoconservatives--those, for example, who advised Bibi Netanyahu to attack Iraq in the late '90s--have a twisted (and conflated) view of both U.S. and Israeli interests: that militarism and bellicosity are the alpha and omega of possible responses to Israel's Arab and Persian neighbors. Those who hold these views have deluded themselves into thinking that those who disagree with them are either "soft on terrorism" or anti-Israel. They have used these canards as a bludgeon against responsible individuals trying to find diplomatic paths toward mutual survival on a very tiny piece of turf. Given their influence in the Bush Administration--and on the McCain campaign--such people are extremely dangerous to Israel's future and ours.

My position is, I believe, more commonly held than theirs: I'm in favor of the use of force, when called for--in the West Bank, after the terrorist attacks of 2002, for example--but I believe that Israel has no long term future unless diplomatic pathways to peace are found.

Update: Here's Max Boot's explanation of what he actually did say. Bottom line: he still opposes negotiations with Syria. Which means he's still opposed to a deal that could significantly harm Iran, help Israel and enable Syria's Alawite leaders to walk back from a too-close relationship with Shi'ite-Iraq (Syria is 80% Sunni). I'm not saying such a deal is doable. But Bashar Assad has made it clear--to me, among others--that he's open to talk and everything's on the table. Where's the harm in that?

Conservative columnist George Will hits McCain with a broadside, all but declaring him temperamentally unfit for office. His column in today's Washington Post concludes:

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

The former President sounds a little smitten himself, as he explains why voters might be drawn to Sarah Palin:

“I come from Arkansas; I get why she's hot out there,” Mr. Clinton said. “Why she's doing well.”

Speaking to reporters before his Clinton Global Initiative meeting, Mr. Clinton described Ms. Palin's appeal by saying, “People look at her, and they say: ‘All those kids. Something that happens in everybody's family. I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. Glad that girl's going around with her boyfriend. Glad they're going to get married.' ”

Mr. Clinton said voters would think: “I like that little Down syndrome kid. One of them lives down the street. They're wonderful children. They're wonderful people. And I like the idea that this guy does those long-distance races. Stayed in the race for 500 miles with a broken arm. My kind of guy.”

The comments come only a few days after he offered this tribute to John McCain:

Clinton said: "I've never concealed my admiration and affection for Senator McCain. I think he's a great man."