The 2008 Presidential election is shaping up as historical in many senses — the first minority candidate, the oldest candidate, a gripping primary battle, the backdrop of a faltering economy and an unpopular war.  But could both candidates be defined more by the baggage they carry than their vision for the future?

The McCain baggage is the easy story.  The "R" for Republican could just as easily mean "Radioactive" after the debacle of the 2006 election and the special elections that have already occurred this year.  In 2006, Democrats swept to power across the nation, in normally safe Republican congressional districts and such upsets as the defeat of a Maryland governor with a 60% approval rating.  Already in 2008, three high-profile special elections have proved that the Republican brand is still in bad shape.  Any Republican running for President bears the scarlet letter of the party, as well as the 25% approval rating of the current occupant of the Oval Office; President Bush seems to be a lead anchor around McCain's neck.

Historically speaking, the odds would be against McCain, even if Bush weren't a toxic drag on the ticket.  Rare are the third terms of a party.  President Bush the elder was the exception, not the rule, when he succeeded the two Reagan terms in the 1988 election:  it was the first "third term" since FDR succeeded his own two terms with an unprecedented third term.  In the meantime, Gerald Ford, Hubert Humphrey, and Richard Nixon failed to extend their respective party's reign beyond 8 years; this concept was, of course, reinforced in the 2000 election.  There just seems to be a reflexive urge for change following two terms of a President's (or a party's) service.

But McCain is by no means unique in being possessive of drags on his campaign.  The Democratic Congress that swept into control in 2006 and seems likely to solidify its gains is even less popularly approved than President Bush — the current Congressional approval ratings came in at a dismal 11%.  Since the Democrats came to power offering to "drain the swamp" of corruption, at least two members, including Chris Dodd, former DNC Chairman and current Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, have been discovered to have received corrupt sweetheart deals from Countrywide Financial Services — the company demonized in the housing credit crunch and subprime mortgage meltdown of the past year.  Promising "change" in 2006, the Democrats have seen the economy falter, unemployment increase, and gasoline prices double on their Congressional watch.  Not exactly the kind of change voters were expecting, I think it's fair to say.

But the Democratic Congress and its incompetence is not the only drag on Obama's campaign.  The cornerstone of Obama's campaign is slew of tax increases:  on investment, on businesses, on income, on payrolls.  Where most of the industrialized world is cutting taxes and improving competitiveness, Obama and the Democrats are seeking to increase them.  Of course, the normal bogeyman of "the rich" is being used as a justification for the massive expansion of government, but so far Obama and the Democrats have been voting to raise taxes on all taxpayers, even the lowest income Americans — the so-called "Bush tax cuts" applied to every tax bracket, including the lowering of the bottom bracket from 15% to 10%, and capital gains tax increases impact pensions and retirement plans.  Tax increase advocacy has not exactly been a recipe for success for Presidential candidates — just ask Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry.   Raising taxes during a period of faltering economic news seems an especially bad idea.

Obama has other drags as well on his candidacy, although he has benefited to some extent from getting them out in the open in the primary battle with Hillary Clinton.  His associations with corrupt businessman and convicted felon Tony Rezko, admitted and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, and controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright have already played out and are most likely non-issues in the fall campaign when most voters become engaged.  And, unfortunately, Obama has been the subject of internet smear campaigns that unfairly distort his statements, actions, and history to suggest some sort of "Manchurian candidacy" fantasy.

Hopefully, voters will base their decisions on actual facts, not innuendo.  But there are real concerns about an Obama presidency:  higher taxes, a near unprecedented expansion of government, and (ironically given his message about the future and change) failed policies from the Great Society and the New Deal that threaten American competitiveness and individual liberty.

Ultimately, this November's election may be decided less by people voting for a candidate than it is about who gets pulled under by the weight of his own negatives.  The election could be more about drag than about propulsion.