by Evie Stone

Sorry for the posting delay, folks — NPR had some technical problems this morning.

Good morning! There's a seasonal chill in the air here in our nation's capital. And over in St. Louis they're looking at sunny skies and highs in the middle 60s on the day of the Vice Presidential debate.

But first, some legislative business. The Senate overwhelmingly approved the updated version of the economic rescue package last night with a bipartisan 74-25 vote that included Obama, McCain, and Biden among the ayes (Sen. Ted Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer, did not vote). By the time it reached the Senate floor, Secretary Paulson's 3-page proposal weighed in at an impressive 451 pages — including tax break extensions, increased FDIC insurance, and a tweak to the AMT that did not appear in the 110 page version that the House rejected Monday. The leadership hope that the add-ons (especially the tax breaks) will make the bill more palatable to House Republicans when the bill returns there, probably on Friday, though there are also some concerns that the tax cuts will alienate a few Democrats. The New York Times explains the rhetorical opportunity the add-ons present to lawmakers who are headed back to their districts to campaign:

Instead of siding with a $700 billion bailout, lawmakers could now say they voted for increased protection for deposits at the neighborhood bank, income tax relief for middle-class taxpayers and aid for schools in rural areas where the federal government owns much of the land.

But back to the VP debate.

 

Conservative pundits and bloggers spent much of yesterday piling on moderator Gwen Ifill over her forthcoming book about several black politicians, including Barack Obama — which has non-secretly been advertised on Amazon and in her PBS bio for awhile now. But Michelle Malkin and others chose yesterday to raise a cry about Ifill being in the tank for Barack Obama and call for her resignation as debate moderator. John McCain only dipped his toe in that pool, telling Fox that he expects Ifill "to do a totally objective job," though he also said it doesn't "help" that she's written a book he calls "favorable to Barack Obama." (Ifill says she actually hasn't written the Obama chapter yet.) Sarah Palin told Sean Hannity on his radio show that the situation would motivate her "to work that much harder." Our take: Ifill can look past the haters — unfortunately, she's heard worse before — and we fully expect her to handle tonight's debate with fairness, toughness, and her trademark class. (You can read Marc Ambinder's dismissal of what he calls "guilt by racial association" here.)

On to the actual VP candidates. The 946th (and final!)(apparently this gift is going to keep on giving) installment of Sarah Palin's interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric aired last night, and has brought with it another round of chatter. This time they were talking about the US Supreme Court. Palin said she disagrees with the Roe vs. Wade decision because she believes abortion laws should be written by the states. But she also told Couric she supports a constitutional right to privacy, which is the basis for the Roe decision. (Guess she's not a strict constructionist like Rudy!) The decision codifying that right allowed a Connecticut doctor to prescribe birth control pills to a married couple. Since that decision in 1965, and especially since Roe in 1973, many conservatives have objected to the idea that privacy is a constitutional right. Joe Biden, in his own interview with Couric, disagrees:

I think the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment ... offers a right to privacy. Now that's one of the big debates that I have with my conservative scholar friends, that they say, you know, unless a right is enumerated - unless it's actually, unless [it] uses the word "privacy" in the Constitution - then no such "constitutional right" exists. Well, I think people have an inherent right.

To be fair, Biden is a constitutional law professor and legislator, so he's thought and argued about these issues for years. But nonetheless, Palin's handlers don't seem to have adequately prepared her with snappy answers to likely questions (most glaringly the foreign policy/Russia issue from a few days ago). On the subject of other Supreme Court decisions beyond Roe, Palin got tongue-tied.

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ...

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of ... any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

There have been plenty of recent decisions that have rankled conservatives — including one that gave Guantantamo detainees the right to challenge their detentions and another that disallowed the death penalty for child rape. And there are older Court decisions she might have mentioned that remind us of our country's ugly history on race, such as Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson. But even casting those aside, the WP's Howard Kurtz notes that Palin could have stayed close to home with this one:

Surprisingly, she failed to mention the court's June decision to slash the punitive damages awarded to those whose livelihoods were affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, which Palin denounced at the time.

Biden's response to the same question regarded the Court overturning a provision in the Violence Against Women act that allowed victims of domestic violence to sue their abusers in federal court. Biden wrote that law, which passed in 1994.

But regardless of Palin's tendency to make a word salad in interviews, a geyser of news stories yesterday made clear that she's a formidable debate opponent with a talent for zingers. And her recent televised verbal struggles may have lowered the bar so much that almost any performance could be declared a victory. Meanwhile, Biden's facility with foreign policy doesn't ensure that tonight will be a homerun for him — he could be blustery or overbearing, make a big gaffe, etc. One thing that's for sure: lots of people will be tuning in to see how it all goes down. Politico sums it up for us:

With all their potential for pitfalls and insta-classic moments, the pair has made the build up to the showdown, to take place here Thursday night at Washington University, feel more like a NASCAR race than a serious political forum: the audience may be tuning in as much in anticipation of cringe-inducing pile-ups as they are to watch the typical parry-and-thrust of debate.

Both campaigns, though, offer public confidence in their number twos, while privately hoping that their veeps will do no harm.

And finally, it's October now...so where's our surprise?

And with that, I'm going to take a few hours off to power up for the big event tonight. I'll be back with you in the late afternoon as we get ready for the debate fact-check-a-pallooza. My delightful colleague Laurel Wamsley and friends will fulfill all your bloggy desires until then.