Perhaps the true "issue" in this and many other campaigns isn't issues at all but rather how skillfully the candidates are marketed (see URL link in my post above.)
I met the author of that article (George Lakoff) out in Denver. He's an interesting guy. I understand and have some empathy for his argument that since we don't know what problems will be facing us in two years that it's rational for people to vote on "if a candidate shares your values, if he's saying what he believes, if he connects with you, if you trust him, and if you identify with him."
But I don't think that's what goes through most voters' minds. I don't think most voters go through the "I don't know what the situation will be in the future" part and just go with the values-beliefs-connects-trust-identify part.
As far as trust goes, lots of people vote for candidates who promise tax cuts and more spending and fiscal responsibility, even though those three items are mutually inconsistent. Candidates who promise all of these things should not be trusted, yet they get elected. Trust should be grounded in some factual basis, yet Lakoff says people don't vote on facts. So I think there's some kind of conceptual problem there.
But as far as his "framing" argument goes, I find little to disagree with.