Pulled punches: The story line going into this debate (like the last one) was the McCain was going to drop the gloves or in his words "whip his you know what."  Instead, he seemed to pull his punches even while he was dropping his gloves.  If he wanted to cast doubt on Obama's character, he didn't do it.  Beginning by saying he didn't "care" about a "washed up terrorist" and then invoking Hillary Clinton's primary charge about Ayers as his link, doesn't cut it.  If he really wanted to go this route, he needed to own it and should have been willing to say, "I do care and my problems with Senator Obama are..." Regardless, he failed to deliver on his promise, and when you boast about your strategy, you've got to back it up.  

Joe Audience: We ought to be able to know something about where the campaigns are at by reflecting on whom the candidates are speaking to.  Throughout, I kept trying to figure out whom McCain imagined himself speaking to.  I was, in short, puzzled.  It was clear that Obama's audience was the small pocket of largely undecided middle class voters.  Persistent references to the middle class, as well as a steady effort to track toward the middle on substantive issues and in the direction of specific demographics revealed who Obama was speaking to.  McCain on the other hand seemed to be fluctuating wildly between "Joe the Plumber" and the conservative base.  They are not one in the same.  Although McCain was effective at connecting his substantive policy positions to the latter group, he labored to go beyond pandering for the former.  Don't get me wrong.  The reference to "Joe" was strategic and it was planned.  The problem was that he ran it into the ground, thereby turning a strength into a liability.  By the end, when it came to connecting Joe to the issues, McCain appeared distant, if not mocking.  This became abundantly clear after the first dozen references.  At the end of the night, is the human face of Joe the Plumber illustrative?

Moderator: Bob Schieffer was mostly outstanding this evening.  To begin with, he wasn't the story.  His questions were thoughtful, well timed, and began with substantive premises.  He managed the time well to cover the issues that needed to be covered.  More importantly, he was genuinely interested in generating clash.  This was evident from the first question which was designed to have the candidates "compare" their economic policies.  Comparisons are the essence of a good debate, and the invitation to focused clash was a welcome move by this moderator.  He should also be applauded for following up when McCain failed to answer his first questions.  Unfortunately, he choose to do less of this as McCain ran the clock out on discussion time all the while layering in new arguments.  He could have picked a few more of those moments, instead of moving on to the next different item on his agenda.

Inside baseball: One of the strategic weaknesses for McCain was that so many of his offensive arguments were short and shrill.  There is the campaign that those of us who follow these things know about and there is the campaign that those who tune in occasionally know about.  So many of McCain's offensive arguments were manifest as jabs that would be missed unless you've followed this campaign closely.  The preference for efficiency only works if you've got an audience closely tracking the back and forth on a day-to-day and even hour-to-hour basis. ACORN is one example among many in this regard.

Closing statements: This was the first debate in which there were official closing statements.  In short, McCain's was more about McCain and Obama's was more about the middle class and the premise of his candidacy.  If this was his closing argument, Obama sewed together the thematic threads with a certain kind of resonance.