Bush II is an excellent case in point. He was sold as a straight-talking no-nonsense blue-collar cowboy with good sense and no desire to make an radical changes in the US or the world. In reality he was a blue-blood elitist, a dry-drunk radical with no basic sense himself and easily swayed by influential advisors into embarking on messianic vision-quests. Oh, well.

I don’t think people are wrong to want someone who’s a genuinely sensible, down to earth character opposed to radical changes, it’s just that they have a hard time telling who’s who. But issues don’t change things much either. Bush certainly took stands on the issues in 2000 that seemed to back up his character claims. He was against interventions in foreign countries, against nation-building – you know the litany. So maybe people are feeling a little burned right now, which is why they may be giving Obama a break on these remarks, and on his overal elitist attitudes. They think in spite of all that, that he’s a pretty good bloke, with a basic degree of common sense.

The real problem in politics isn’t issues vs. character, but the ancient problem of knowing who to trust in either respect. I think McCain got the nomination because Republicans felt that at least he seemed trustworthy, unlike Romney. He may only have had one issue, the surge, but at least he seemed to really believe in it, rather than merely taking a stance for political purposes (again, like Romney). If McCain had been against the surge (and the war in general), not only would he have still been the Republican nominee, he might have been the Democratic nominee as well.

Likewise, Obama clearly appeals on character issues, but if he’d been for the war he would have had no chance at all. Some issue really do matter, and in this election the war really, really matters.