While I personally don’t think that a husband must control his family’s finances, that is a common belief in America and as such McCain’s not doing so is a “valid” political tactic, whereas Obama’s assertion that McCain is just too wealthy to be POTUS is not a valid attack. It may point out an underlying flaw in our national character, but characterizing McCain as a “kept man” still a reasonable political attack vector.

There is also the related and less potentially offensive fact that, since McCain’s wealth – or the bulk of it – comes from sources he doesn’t control or monitor, he may have a less visceral understanding of the effects of money and debt on the average American. Attacking his wealth is stupid; attacking the fact that McCain has his wife’s money at least somewhat at his beck and call is less so.

Am curious, however, why [t]he fact that Sen. McCain doesn’t see – much less control – the purse strings in his family both explains his lack of knowledge about the properties he and his wife own and would be a more interesting attack ad.
Interesting? Perhaps. Valid? Hardly, unless you’re operating under the assumption that a husband should not only know but also control the purse strings in his family. Not suggesting you’re saying that, but your commentary did raise the question in my mind what your underlying assumption is. A husband who seemingly may not know or control all of the collected purse strings in his family should be called into question as being a potential good leader?

Would love some clarification. Perhaps I misunderstood your intended meaning.

I just can’t help it but wonder how the people get duped so easily? In my view, Obama will win becaus ehe is popular and likable just like when Clinton cameinto American’s living room for the first itme. But what do i know?