by Evie Stone

Good morning.

Before we proceed to the task of rehashing last night's debate festivities...we awakened today to news of a coordinated interest rate cut in (via the New York Times) "the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the European Central Bank as well as those in Canada, Sweden and Switzerland." The Fed cut its funds rate half a percentage point to 1.5%, and the discount rate by the same amount, bringing it to 1.75%. More from the NYT:

The coordinated action comes as governments around the world have been trying to ease the financial turmoil that has led to bank collapses, and billions of dollars in bailouts, as well as market turmoil that has sent the Dow Jones industrial average down 1,400 points in the last five days. Yet credit markets, which businesses depend on to finance day-to-day operations have remained frozen. On Tuesday, the Fed announced a program to begin buying commercial paper.

Hell's bells. (Commercial paper explainer, for those who are wondering.)

But back to last night's debate. The general consensus among the punditocracy seems to be that neither candidate scored a clear victory or massively screwed up (Drudge headline: BORING). Indeed, in the absence of any memorable zingers, the most-discussed line this morning appears to be McCain at one point referring to Obama as "that one". (Though McCain spox Nicole Wallace told CBS this morning — via Playbook — that the umbrage only serves to prove that Obama-Biden is "the fussiest campaign in American history.") Analyst consensus: the tie goes to the guy with the momentum, and McCain lost last night simply for failing to shake things up. Politico's Roger Simon distills the CW:

[I]f you had to say somebody lost Tuesday night, it was McCain. Because he had to win and he did not. He is the one who has to change the current trajectory of the campaign, and he did not do that.

 

The LAT seconds that analysis:

With less than four weeks until the election, the 90-minute session before a national television audience presented McCain one of his last best chances to turn around a contest that seems to be moving decidedly in Obama's direction. There was no obvious momentum-shifting moment, but unlike their first debate on Sept. 26, the two made little effort to hide their seemingly mutual contempt.

And NYT's Adam Nagourney agrees:

The gravity of the moment and the somber setting — a town-hall-style meeting in front of 80 selected voters who, when not asking questions, watched in silence, not applauding or laughing — produced an often stifled encounter, largely absent of dramatic confrontations or the personal exchanges that dominated the campaign over the past several days. There was no indication that the debate did anything to change the course of a campaign that appeared to be moving in Mr. Obama's direction.

Elsewhere, to quote King Mongkut, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Notably missing from the action: any evidence of the increasingly personal tone the campaign has taken over the past several days. No Bill Ayers, no Charles Keating, no Tony Rezko. Perhaps in the context of the economic crisis, it would seem too petty for the candidates to stray from the real issues when they're face to face with voters?

The candidates both endeavored to battle their perceived weaknesses. McCain tried to revive his flagging support on economic issues by using the huge audience opportunity to announce a new proposal aimed at keeping Americans in their homes. The plan, which the campaign estimates would cost about $300 billion, is an about-face from McCain's previous stance on homeowner help. But the Obama campaign and factcheck.org say elements of McCain's plan were signed into law last week as part of the enormous rescue package.

Obama, meanwhile, bit back at McCain's assertion that he "does not understand our national security challenges" well enough to be President — a reiteration of a major rhetorical theme from the first debate. Obama's (prepared) response:

Well, you know, Senator McCain, in the last debate and today, again, suggested that I don't understand. It's true. There are some things I don't understand.

I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, while Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are setting up base camps and safe havens to train terrorists to attack us.

That was Senator McCain's judgment and it was the wrong judgment.

When Senator McCain was cheerleading the president to go into Iraq, he suggested it was going to be quick and easy, we'd be greeted as liberators.

That was the wrong judgment, and it's been costly to us.

The conservative response to that statement can be summed up with one word: surge.

In summation, if we may be so bold...perhaps the biggest flaw of this debate was the silly format. No follow-ups? No responses? What was Tom Brokaw's job supposed to be other than adding gravitas to the occasion? Reading questions from the internet and telling the candidates there was no time for them to engage with one another? The responsibility for this particular failure lies squarely with the campaigns, which haggled with each other to lay ground rules and time constraints that ensured the debate would be utterly bloodless. As our Kyle Gassiott pointed out last night, "debate" is truly a misnomer for this type of exchange...Kyle suggests that "moderated talking-point hurling" would be a more apt descriptor.

But enough curmudgeonliness from your blogger. Sarah Palin chatted with reporters for the first time on her plane yesterday! Via Political Radar, Palin told reporters she relishes the campaign's current underdog role, reiterated her commitment to Michigan, and referred to the Troopergate investigation as a "goat rope." And she defended her recent campaign trail references to Obama's association with Bill Ayers, arguing that Obama's downplaying of his relationship with Ayers should raise concerns about his character:

"I think it just makes us ask the question that, if there's not forthrightness there, with that association and what was known and when it was known, does that lead us to ask, is there forthrightness with the plans Barack Obama has on say tax cuts, or spending increases?" Palin added. "It makes you wonder about the forthrightness, the truthfulness of the plans that he is telling America in regards to the economic recovery because that is first and foremost on American's minds."

Palin also said she would "love to" appear on Saturday Night Live — perhaps imitating Tina Fey, whom she referred to as "a hoot." (We agree.)

And finally, Joe Biden on GMA, re: Jason Sudeikis's SNL impression of him: "I wish I had that much hair."