The Note: Base Instincts

August 21, 2008 -- Everyone wants their convention to be a party that showcases one big happy family -- but which side looks ready to nab most-likely-to-be-dysfunctional honors?

(Wait before you answer that, at least until the running mates are chosen.)

As we still wait for that text message (still no leaks -- remarkable), the best-laid plans of both campaigns threaten to overshadow their big weeks. Two candidates who define themselves by reaching into the middle are seeing trouble spots emerge inside their bases.

Sen. John McCain has loaded his convention lineup with a fantasy team of "pro-choice" all-stars: Rudy and Arnold and Joe Lieberman -- not your father's GOP (unless your father is George H.W. Bush, we suppose). (What's a delegate to think when a platform is a handy scorecard chronicling featured speakers' disagreements with dogma?)

Sen. Barack Obama has seen his convention stuffed with enough Clinton drama to provide a tasty Denver buffet. (And those persistent "dream" ticket rumors -- if there's no there there, how does it bode for catharsis?)

Then there's the concerns of a suddenly very worried Democratic Party. As for why: It's an identical Obama 45, McCain 42 spread in the new Wall Street Journal/NBC and New York Times/CBS polls.

"Sen. John McCain has all but closed the gap with Sen. Barack Obama, underscoring how international crises -- and some well-placed negative ads -- have boosted the prospects of the Republican presidential candidate," Laura Meckler writes in The Wall Street Journal.

Clinton alert: "Only half of those who voted for Sen. Clinton in the primaries say they are now supporting Sen. Obama. One in five is supporting Sen. McCain."

Can a convention do all this? "Slim majorities said neither candidate had made clear what he would do as president, suggesting that both need to use their conventions to provide voters with a better sense of their plans for addressing the deteriorating economy, high energy prices, access to health care and national security," Michael Cooper and Dalia Sussman write in The New York Times.

This is a feat: "Nearly half of those surveyed said that they expected [McCain] to continue the Bush administration's policies if he were elected president. But voters, by a wide margin, view Mr. McCain as better prepared to be president than Mr. Obama, and as more likely to be an effective commander in chief."

Feel the angst growing? "It's not panic time -- yet -- but some Democrats watching Barack Obama say his campaign should have gotten a wake-up call this week, not only from his appearance alongside John McCain at the Saddleback Church but from a major poll suggesting he no longer leads his GOP opponent," Carla Marinucci writes in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Obama wants Democrats to calm down a bit: "I don't think that's just about me. I think they are congenitally nervous because we lost a bunch of presidential elections where people felt that we should have won," Obama, D-Ill., tells Time's Karen Tumulty and David Von Drehle.

Tea-leaf alert: Obama on what his running mate selection will say about him: "That I think through big decisions. I get a lot of input from a lot of people, and that ultimately, I try to surround myself with people who are about getting the job done, and who are not about ego, self-aggrandizement, getting their names in the press, but our focus on what's best for the American people. I think people will see that I'm not afraid to have folks around me who complement my strengths and who are independent."

(Sounds more like Bayh than Biden or Kaine . . . Tumulty guesses Bayh "or a surprise whose name has not been circulating on the pundits' short lists.")

As for McCain, his flirtations with a running mate who supports abortion rights may be a clever ploy -- a play to the middle, a bridge to former Clinton supporters, an elixir for the pick he's really planning.

But he's already dangerously close to losing control of the message. Talk radio is dialed in, and McCain got two questions on the subject at a town-hall meeting Wednesday in New Mexico -- and he's still leaving the running-mate door (publicly) open to a candidate who supports abortion rights.

It's just as well McCain isn't bothering with the platform, when so many top speakers disagree with its core tenets.

"The speaker lineup was aimed at attracting moderates and independents into McCain's camp, but it seemed destined to add fuel to the fight already smoldering over abortion rights," Maeve Reston and Bob Drogin write in the Los Angeles Times. "McCain has since been trying to shore up his conservative credentials -- insisting at a Saturday forum at Saddleback Church in Orange County that he would be a 'pro-life president' and that a McCain presidency 'will have pro-life policies.' "

There are few politicians with the star power of former mayor Rudolph Giuliani, R-N.Y., and having him as keynoter reinforces key themes for McCain. But it may also speak too loudly to other themes.

McCain's first criterion would be selecting a person "who could immediately be president of the United States," Giuliani told reporters Wednesday, per The Washington Post's Robert Barnes. He added: "If that person happens to be, among other things, pro-choice, the party will support that."

Maybe not so much. Said Laura Ingraham: "From the conservative perspective we are literally imploring you to not turn your back on your great pro-life record over decades."

Then there's Lieberman, I-Conn. -- still the likeliest (if it's even the least bit likely) pro-choicer to join McCain on the ticket. (And kudos on the stagecraft that has him speaking the same night as President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.)

"The speaking role is the result of the four-term Connecticut senator's loyalty to Republican presidential candidate John McCain," McClatchy's David Lightman writes. "The senators bonded in the 1990s as they tried to build bipartisan coalitions on foreign policy, campaign finance changes and environmental issues. Their alliance has strengthened in recent years over their support of the Iraq war."

"News of Lieberman's turn in the GOP spotlight was only the latest step on a path that has taken him from his debut 38 years ago as a liberal Democrat in New Haven to the biggest stage in Republican politics," Mark Pazniokas writes for the Hartford Courant.

(And does this mark the beginning of the end of Lieberman's association with the Democratic caucus? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he'll address the Lieberman situation after the election -- when, almost certainly, Democrats won't need his vote like they do right now. Here's guessing stalwart Democrats won't like the idea of welcoming back a man who spoke at the Republican National Convention -- not that he'll need the job anymore if McCain wins.)

It's probably not possible for the Netroots to hate him any more than they already do: "Yesterday, Democratic anger escalated after the GOP announced that Lieberman will deliver a major address to its convention," Michael Kranish writes for The Boston Globe. "At the 'Lieberman Must Go' website, 52,000 people have signed a petition seeking his ouster from the Democratic caucus, and many leave comments that call him a turncoat -- or worse."

Gail Collins nails the weirdness, in her New York Times column: "Talk about bipartisanship! . . . . When you have a 71-year-old presidential candidate, it's particularly important that voters be confident that he's backed up by an experienced and qualified vice president prepared to step in and do the exact opposite about everything except Iraq."

She continues: "Lieberman is certainly capable of dumping everything he has ever believed in and assuring the anti-choice, anti-union, anti-government folk that he is on their team. But then the magic fades and all you've got is a conservative Republican who likes the environment teamed with a guy who will do anything to move up. If that's all you're looking for, you might as well take Mitt Romney."