Pretty good summary at Politico this week.  I agree with most of it.

Biden must be prepared for her to attack both him and Obama.  If I were in the McCain campaign, that’s what I’d do.  An assault on him by her would likely throw him a little off balance if he hasn’t considered the possibility.  It would be the best way to keep the focus off herself.  But certainly you would expect him to be prepared for her to make this debate not about her, but Obama.  As as he’s surely been advised not to patronize her, if cornered, he might stumble, afraid of appearing condescending or dismissive of a woman candidate.  Forcing him to defend his or Obama’s positions leaves less time for her to put her foot in her mouth.

Otherwise, not attacking her is probably smart.  Let her dig her own hole, at which she has proven adept.  But he should take advantage of the two minute discussion period by, as one debate preparer suggested, by asking her what she thinks.  Biden’s problem will be to leave enough of the two-minute period for her to respond.  Keep it short, Joe.  She’d be smart to ask him what he thinks.  Those two minutes would disappear.

It would be a mistake for him not to engage Palin directly, without referring to any of her previous gaffs.  If he disagrees with something she says, he should say so — directly to her. Otherwise, he would be accused of being as dismissive and disrespectful to her as McCain was to Obama.  And when asked to respond to something she says, I’d repeat the phrase, “If I understand Gov. Palin….”

I agree that McCain is his real target because if anyone has the experience and credibility to question McCain’s positions and temperament, it is Biden.  He should provide clear examples of McCain’s behavior and votes in the Senate.  Questioning McCain’s temperament, which Obama signaled in his acceptance speech, will be central to the rest of the campaign.

Biden can also provide confirmation of Obama’s work in the Senate by referencing their work together on the Foreign Relations Committee, of which Biden is the chair.

Biden’s blue collar roots should be highlighted as Palin will certainly emphasize that part of her biography.  And it’s not just about Biden’s roots but Obama’s.  Again, he can testify to Obama’s views and how they were sculpted by his upbringing.  In fact, he should find an opportunity to explain why McCain can’t identify with the middle class.  He was the son and grandson of an admiral, a son of privilege, who leveraged that privilege into an appointment to the Naval Academy where he was, as we all know, near the bottom of the class.  Now he’s a rich man with a house or two.  He’s never been in the middle class.

The bar is now set so low for Palin that Biden would be well served not to worry about how she comes off but rather reinforce his reputation as a thoughtful leader in foreign affairs.  For the most part, the VP debate is even less than a warm bucket of spit.  “You’re no John Kennedy” didn’t stop Dan Quayle from being elected VP.

And given the criticism moderator Gwen Ifill, don’t expect much help from her.  I respect her, but my guess is she’ll tread lightly.  That pre-censorship is something conservatives are good at engendering by criticizing the press.  Those tough reporters tend to have thin skins, according to Howard Kurtz, “…some journalists say privately they are censoring their comments about Palin to avoid looking like they’re piling on.”

I’ll be holding my breath tomorrow night, not when she speaks, but when Biden does.  Please Joe, resist the flip ad lib.

The Washington Post clearly caved — to whom isn’t clear — to forces wanting to call the $700 million bailout bill a “rescue.”  Clearly, the Wall Street Journal has followed suit today with its lead story.

I counted more than a half dozen references this morning to a rescue package and not a single reference by reporters to a bailout.  Why the change?

The right-wing talking heads on CNBC, which I think fairly represent the views of Wall St., have been calling for the rescue term instead of “bailout.”  It has a nicer ring.  A rescue does not connote any malfeasance.  It also is an action verb of a heroic actor.  The taxpayers are coming to the common good rescue of the Wall St. damsel in distress.  Bailout, in its common usage, suggests some who would think that we should let the perpetrator sink.  Guests and the so-called reporters on CNBC have been arguing that the economic repercussions of the credit crunch demand that we not call this a bailout, because it’s not, they say.  There’s no doubt that government, i.e., taxpayers, must do something or else the economy will be under tremendous distress.  Whatever the “good” reasons might be, the fact is that many on Wall St. will be sheltered from their own greed and stupidity as a result of this plan.

It’s not just the CEOs who are to blame.  Complicit are those who worked for the banks and investment firms.  They must have known they were playing with a house of cards.  They were rewarded handsomely.  I have no sympathy for Bear or Lehman workers.  Maybe next time, they’ll get an honest job.

But it’s not only Wall St. who wants the “rescue” terminology. 

Campaigning in Nevada on Tuesday, Obama rejected the loaded term “bailout” — a phrase that has been abandoned by the White House because of the connotation that it would help the perpetrators of the meltdown — and said that if the plan were designed to save “a few big banks on Wall Street, it would be one thing.”

“But that’s not what it means,” Obama said. “What it means is that if we do not act, it will be harder for you to get a mortgage for your home or the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. . . . Millions of jobs could be lost. A long and painful recession could follow.”

He attempted to reframe the bill from the idea of just handing $700 billion to Wall Street, and he said the plan had been “misunderstood and poorly communicated.”

“When it’s called a bailout, nobody is in favor of a bailout,” Obama said.

John McCain made the same argument yesterday.

So it’s not clear why The Post has decided to change terminology.  I may be that the support of Wall St. and the presidential candidates is enough.  Damn the readers and taxpayers.  Or it may have bowed to pressure of its advertisers, including a coalition of business groups who took out a full page ad (A9) today to call on Congress to pass, not a bailout plan, or even a rescue plan, but a “recovery plan.” 

When will The Post start calling it a recovery plan?

For those who know a bailout when they see one, read the New York Times.  Today, they still call a bailout a bailout.  How quaint, eh?