Obama says no

His response to McCain's gambit:

It's my belief that this is exactly the time the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days [sic; 118 days] will be responsible with dealing with this mess.

What I’ve told the leadership in Congress is that if I can be helpful then I am prepared to be anywhere, anytime. What I think is important is that we don’t suddenly infuse Capitol Hill with presidential politics. ...

Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time. It’s not necessary for us to think that we can only do one thing and suspend everything else.

I think Obama is right on the merits (as I noted in the Linklog, members of Congress from both parties are reportedly saying that "a summit attended by both nominees would slow the sense of progress toward a bailout deal that had built throughout the day on Wednesday"), but I think McCain is going to "win" politically on this. The media will be solidly in Obama's corner, dismissing McCain's stunt as just that -- but that won't help Obama, and might even hurt him. And low-information voters will eat McCain's "country first" line right up. This could shift the whole campaign.

[UPDATE: On the other hand, at least one National Review columnist says "Obama sounds reasonable and less gimmicky than McCain. ... Obama may win this campaign moment yet. If McCain protests, he looks petty." Perhaps. If McCain's gambit is too cynical even for The Corner, that says something. Then again, Kathryn Jean Lopez is hardly a "low-information voter." I still think McCain wins the signaling war here. But I could be wrong.]

That said, ask yourself: if McCain really wanted to put partisanship aside, and put "country first," wouldn't he have waited until either: a) a deal with Obama been worked out behind-the-scenes, allowing a joint announcement of a bipartisan, time-limited campaign "suspension" and debate delay; or b) such a deal had been flatly and clearly rejected by the Obama camp? Instead, McCain short-circuited the negotiations in order to effectively "dare" Obama to either "follow McCain's lead" or look "partisan." McCain's gambit may be a lot of things -- including, quite possibly, a brilliant political masterstroke -- but it is neither "bipartisan" nor "putting country first."

Anyway: now what? Does McCain refuse to debate Obama? Does he send Palin as a substitute? That, I think, would be a potential disaster for Obama. Expectations would be so low for her, and so high for him, that it would be virtually impossible for him to "win" such a debate. And yet, if McCain proposes it, can Obama refuse to debate Palin without looking "scared"? This whole situation is a real minefield for him.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse: "I suppose Obama couldn't very well follow McCain's lead. In fact, if McCain had really been serious about this, he should have worked it out with Obama in private, so that the two men could make a joint announcement. McCain went for political theatrics, and I guess he can use it against Obama now, which was probably the point, but Obama's reaction was so predictable that McCain's show of statesmanship was entirely bogus." Indeed.