No knockouts, no memorable zingers. McCain on points.

McCain was able to pull it into his turf. Obama did not pounce enough when given the chance.

Obama showed he was tough, informed, etc. Remember that a lot of people (not bloggers and commenters) are just tuning in, and Obama still has to introduce himself to a lot of voters. A red zone for Obama is “angry black man.” He can’t go there; fairly or not, he can’t go there. So, he may have to risk being too cool, or not combative enough. Because if he can, in any way, remotely be painted as Al Sharpton, then it’s all over.

On these debates, the post-debate spin, the SNL skits (for example) can count for more than the debate itself. So, if, for example, SNL runs a skit portraying McCain as a mean, grumpy, contemptuous old guy, “Obama does not understand,” then that could change things.

Otherwise, McCain on points.

Update: I keep pondering this, and while I may be wholly biased by my desire to make it come out well for my guy, I’m thinking more and more about how the two candidates looked to the 100 million voters who are just starting to pay attention. If Obama’s mission was to present himself as responsible, dignified-but-tough, presidential, intelligent, informed, etc., then he did just that. A rope-a-dope strategy? Let McCain throw all his punches, while outlasting him, looking him in the eye, and being presidential? We’ll see what the polls says.

Update 2: CBS News instant poll of undecided voters says Obama won.

Forty percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-two percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-eight percent saw it as a draw.

Frankly, those numbers surprise me. But, maybe they reflect something like the strategy (or is it a “tactic?”) I noted above.

Update 3: Frank Luntz panel on Fox News(!) gives edge to Obama:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wup4nsIWe8A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1]

So says GOP Rep. Blunt:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mVrW_YNHF4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1]

So McCain will attend the debate tonight. His presence apparently delayed a deal. There is no deal at this moment. But he has resumed his non-suspended campaign and will debate.

And that accomplished what?

From the NYTimes:

The day began with an agreement that Washington hoped would end the financial crisis that has gripped the nation. It dissolved into a verbal brawl in the Cabinet Room of the White House, urgent warnings from the president and pleas from a Treasury secretary who knelt before the House speaker and appealed for her support.

When Congressional leaders and Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, the two major party presidential candidates, trooped to the White House on Thursday afternoon, most signs pointed toward a bipartisan agreement on a grand compromise that could be accepted by all sides and signed into law by the weekend. It was intended to pump billions of dollars into the financial system, restoring liquidity and keeping credit flowing to businesses and consumers.

Mr. Boehner pressed an alternative that involved a smaller role for the government, and Mr. McCain, whose support of the deal is critical if fellow Republicans are to sign on, declined to take a stand.

The talks broke up in angry recriminations, according to accounts provided by a participant and others who were briefed on the session, and were followed by dueling news conferences and interviews rife with partisan finger-pointing.

It was the very outcome the White House had said it intended to avoid, with partisan presidential politics appearing to trample what had been exceedingly delicate Congressional negotiations.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Senate banking committee, denounced the session as “a rescue plan for John McCain,” and proclaimed it a waste of precious hours that could have been spent negotiating.

But a top aide to Mr. Boehner said it was Democrats who had done the political posturing. The aide, Kevin Smith, said Republicans revolted, in part, because they were chafing at what they saw as an attempt by Democrats to jam through an agreement on the bailout early Thursday and deny Mr. McCain an opportunity to participate in the agreement.

If anyone wants to claim that it is Chris Dodd and the evil Dems blaming McCain, then he should not have given them the opportunity.

A more serious, less snarky way to put this is that McCain (and Obama), since they are running for President, obviously and inevitably bring even more partisan baggage to the table, if only in the way that their opponents might characterize their actions.

John screwed the pooch. Big time.

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? … Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions.

“Not always responsive?” How about “clinically brain dead?”

Looks like we may have a deal:

House and Senate negotiators from both parties said Thursday that they had reached general agreement to move forward with the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion rescue effort of the nation’s financial system.

Emerging from a nearly three-hour meeting in the Capitol, Republicans and Democrats said they would continue working through the day to complete the
legislative language and would begin final negotiations with the Treasury.

Oh well, maybe the next tantrum/stunt will work out better.

The banks and financial institutions are in trouble largely because of bad mortgages, i.e. mortgages that borrowers (consumers) are having difficulty paying. And, any attempts to sell in a down market tend to make the problem worse.

So, understanding that any solution will be unfair, or unevenly distributed, or will have winners and losers, why not bail out the people at the bottom of this food chain? Here's a proposal:

1) The Federal government will pay (make an equity infusion) of 20% of all outstanding mortgages. Whatever you owe today, the Feds will cut a check for 20% of that amount to your lender. Essentially everyone gets a down payment, or everyone instantly gets more equity in their home.

This would have to be means-tested, so that the very wealthy did not benefit, maybe one's net worth would have to be under $1MM. Note that moderately wealthy or upper middle class would HAVE to be included, so that the banks that lent to them would get some meaningful relief. If only the small loans of poorer people were part of this deal, the banks would still have too many big ones that were under water.

2) All the borrowers who want to (not compulsory) would have the opportunity to re-finance, at a fixed rate for 10, 15, or 30 years. Since adjustables rates were part of the problem, the idea would be to give all these consumers an absolutely predictable, and affordable, interest rate and mortgage payment.

The rate would be (something like) six percent. Fixed.

3) Ensure that the banks don't lose money on these new, re-financed mortgages. All these new mortgages would be in a defined pool. Every bank could borrow, from the Fed, money needed to support there new pooled mortgages at (let's say) 4.5 percent. Banks have to make money too, and if their funding rate on these 6.0% loans was 4.5%, that should work out.

Josh Marshall nails it:

“One of the advantages of running a presidential campaign is that roughly half the country is deeply committed to believing or at least saying that virtually anything you do or say makes sense. And so it is here. But, look, if you were living in the real world, if you were some hotshot young executive at a Fortune 500 company trying to rise in the ranks, and you pulled some whacked crap like this, it would probably get you blackballed permanently.”

The regional spokesman for John McCain in Colorado accidentally sent the campaign’s internal talking points on the candidate’s plans to suspend his campaign to its entire Colorado media list, instead of a list of key volunteers, Wednesday afternoon, PolitickerCO’s Jeremy Pelzer reports.

How much lower and desperate and comical can the McCain campaign get?