I'm starting to think that I know what I'm talking about. I wrote here that
"As I watched the debate between McCain and Obama last night, I began to realize that if McCain had voted against the bailout he could [have] completely slaughtered Obama. Had he kept his vote close to the vest and rebuked the bailout at the very end, it would have passed the Senate and likely the House, and Obama would be left holding the blame."
Here's Bryan Caplan's post:
Blase's magic bullet is simple: McCain should have opposed the bailout. There was a lot of popular resentment of it; it would have put a mile's distance between McCain and Bush's failures; it would have given McCain a great populist issue to ride; and it would have put Obama in the awkward position of defending Bush to the country. Even though the public wanted to "do something," McCain could easily have screamed "Yea, but not this!" from the rooftops - and people would have listened.
The main counter-argument: If McCain had opposed the bailout, it might not have passed - making it much harder to campaign against it. Indeed, Obama might have seen the trap and opposed the bailout, too, making it even harder for McCain to make the bailout his central issue. I wouldn't dismiss these possibilities. But even if they came to pass, an anti-bailout McCain would have had better chances than he does today.