News of the record federal deficit for 2008, has produced a spate of articles, like this one from The Washington Post that point out that the promises being made by both campaigns will continue to ring up massive deficits in the years to come.
"This is going to make it extraordinarily difficult for whoever's going to become president," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). "I don't care who the president is -- when they come in and meet with their secretary of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve chairman, their top economists, it will be a sobering moment."
Neither of these campaigns are oblivious to the realities of the situation. Therefore, each campaign must have an approach they intend to use once their candidate is in the White House that they are not willing to tell the voters about now. In McCain's case I would say that his plan is to continue not giving a flying crap about budget deficits. Worked for Reagan.

But there's no way Barack Obama is seriously considering this approach. He has to have a target in mind where a great deal of spending cuts can from. It's obvious that defense spending is out of control. Could it be that Obama has a plan for the defense budget that he's unwilling to get into? Obviously, I'm purely speculating but I believe that he does. Since I don't think he's going to make the mistake Bill Clinton made when he allowed bases to close, the question becomes how do you keep a huge standing army and manage to cut defense spending?
He needs to gut the intelligence community and reassign their legitimate purposes to the military. He could also save a fortune by ending almost all military contracts--because we all know how efficient those were--and, again, farm those duties back to the soldiers. Finally, Obama could initiate a review of which big ticket items we actually need. If we stop buying weapons we won't use anyway because of Obama's focus on diplomacy we won't spend as much money. Curtailing research and development on weapons systems we're not likely to develop, like missile shields, would help out quite a bit as well.
Of course, outlining these positions would lead to an unending 24-hour news-chorus of "weak on defense!" (as opposed to the seven or eight hours of it that we get now).