The Note: Now Batting, No. 44

Sept. 24, 2008— -- Sen. John McCain used to say he'd rather lose an election than lose a war. Well -- what about an economy, senator?

This is a moment for presidential leadership, a chance for a Mr. September -- and it's McCain who has the most at stake in how he handles the bailout bill nobody loves but everybody seems to realize you cannot in good faith hate.

The measure is a tempting target for McCain to ramp up the populism and signal a major break with President Bush -- and maybe leave Sen. Barack Obama clinging to an unpopular bag. But actions have consequences -- and McCain's actions could be particularly consequential given the curious politics of this most curious of measures.

"If Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain doesn't vote for the Bush administration's $700 billion economic bailout plan, some Republican and Democratic congressional leaders tell ABC News the plan won't pass," per ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

"If McCain doesn't come out for this, it's over," a top House Republican tells ABC.

As for Democrats: "A Democratic leadership source says that White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has been told that Democratic votes will not be there if McCain votes no -- that there is no deal if McCain doesn't go along," Stephanopoulos reports.

"McCain's aides say he has not made up his mind, and one [aide] told me that McCain is determined to, quote, 'be the champion of the little guy here,' " Stephanopoulos reported on "World News."

ABC's Jake Tapper: "Senior Democrats on the Hill are worried that Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., will 'demagogue' the bill, continue to voice opposition to it, use it to run against both Wall Street and Congress, as well as to distance himself from the Bush White House. Democrats worry McCain will not only vote against the bill, he will provide cover for other Republicans to do so, leaving Democrats holding the bag for the Bush administration's deeply unpopular proposal."

Why wait for January when we could use a president today? (And why wait another day when the race's dynamics are shifting by the hour?)

Your much-altered race, swirled by the economic wake: "Barack Obama has seized the reins of economic discontent, vaulting over John McCain's convention gains by persuading voters he both better understands their economic troubles and can better address them," ABC's Gary Langer writes. "Fifty-three percent of registered voters in this new ABC News/Washington Post poll call the economy the single most important issue in the election, up 12 points in two weeks to an extraordinary level of agreement."

"He's recovered to a 14-point lead over McCain in trust to handle the economy, and leads by 13 points specifically in trust to deal with the meltdown of major financial institutions," Langer writes -- and trust in other areas falls into place around the big ones.

It's 52-43 among likely voters, the first statistically significant lead either candidate has had this election in this poll -- and the first time in the past three election cycles that the Democratic candidate has broken 50 percent in am ABC/Post pre-election poll. (Last McCain bastion? McCain 72, Obama 48, on who would make a good commander-in-chief.)

Per George Stephanopoulos -- not since 1948 has a candidate with a lead this big this late lost the election.

"Turmoil in the financial industry and growing pessimism about the economy have altered the shape of the presidential race, giving Democratic nominee Barack Obama the first clear lead of the general-election campaign over Republican John McCain," Dan Balz and Jon Cohen write in The Washington Post.

Palin popped? "In the face of bad economic news, the two candidates now run about evenly among white women, and Obama has narrowed the overall gap among white voters to five percentage points," they write. "Two weeks ago, when those surveyed were asked who they trusted to deal with a major unexpected crisis, McCain led 54 percent to 37 percent. That lead is gone."

What does McCain do? Pressure from Newt: "dead loser on Election Day," is how former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., describes the bailout bill, per ABC's Teddy Davis. He tells Davis: "I don't know how [McCain] can vote for this and with a straight face go around and say that he's for real change and he's the reform candidate."

If McCain opposes it . . . "You'll have 'Bush-Obama ads' on the one side and 'taking on the Bush-Obama establishment' on the other side, and that will be, frankly, one of the more amazing elections," Gingrich said.

Careful -- who's the elitist now?

"The McCain campaign wants to cast Sen. Barack Obama as an arugula-munching, Hawaii-vacationing, Ivy League-educated limousine liberal who's eager to raise your taxes and outlaw your guns in cahoots with his effete intellectual friends," per ABC News. "But such a message -- similar to ones that have been driven by GOP campaigns for decades -- is getting lost, perhaps somewhere in Sen. John McCain's seven homes and 13 cars. In a reversal from recent presidential campaigns, this year's race features a Democrat who is portraying the Republican as an elitist who can't relate to the concerns of ordinary Americans."

And a widening Fannie and Freddie problem for McCain: "One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain's campaign manager from the end of 2005 through last month, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement," Jackie Calmes and David D. Kirkpatrick write in The New York Times.

"The disclosure contradicts a statement Sunday night by Mr. McCain that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had no involvement with the company for the last several years," Calmes and Kirkpatrick write. "Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis & Manafort for the duration of the campaign, but as a partner and equity-holder continues to share in its profits."

They've been warning us about The New York Times (who might be the scarier McCain enemy in New York this week -- Bill Keller, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?)

"The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper's reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper's preferred candidate, Barack Obama," Michael Goldfarb blogs for the McCain campaign.

But it's not just the Times: "Almost up until the time it was taken over by the government in the nation's financial crisis, one of two housing giants paid $15,000 a month to the lobbying firm of John McCain's campaign manager, a person familiar with the financial arrangement says," the AP's Pete Yost writes. "The money from Freddie Mac to the firm of Rick Davis is on top of more than $30,000 a month that went directly to Davis for five years starting in 2000."

It's not just the Times and the AP: "The firm, Davis Manafort, has collected $15,000 a month from the organization since late 2005, when Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae dissolved a five-year-old advocacy group that Davis earned nearly $2 million leading, the sources said," Roll Call's Tory Newmyer reports.

It's not just the Times and the AP and Newsweek: "Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement," Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports.

Says David Donnelly, Director of Campaign Money Watch: "John McCain's campaign manager and Freddie Mac essentially had what amounts to a secret half a million dollar lay-a-way plan."

Back on the bailout bill, still no commitments, from either candidate, beyond new sets of principles: "The financial meltdown is bedeviling both candidates, who know the Nov. 4 election could turn on voters' sense of who can best keep the country from a deep recession," Charles Babington reports for the AP. "They have acted cautiously so far, avoiding the intense debate in Congress and offering similar calls for greater oversight and taxpayer protections, which rank among the less controversial criticisms of the plan."