I was working tonight so didn't see it. Have it taped, but probably won't watch it. Quick scan of online reaction suggests that it was not interesting enough to sit through and Obama won it pretty much the way he won the first one--maybe this time he was a little more assertive. Whatever.
The race is over. The debates aren't going to change anything, and there's nothing more to learn from them. Everybody's mind is pretty much made up. And in the time between the debates the slime will still be slung, but it won't stick. Nothing anybody says at this point will make a difference. Even if McCain proposed the most brilliant, fairest-minded solution to get us out of this crisis, it wouldn't save him because he and his party have no credibility. And becaus anybody with any sense understands that nothing either candidate says now is anything but the vaguest indicator of what he will do once elected.
The economy is the only thing that matters and the Dems win that argument by default, no matter what either says he's going to do about it. The only thing that change the dynamics is some unforeseen event of the October-Surprise variety. It could happen, but don't expect it. I suppose you can't by definition expect a surprise, but you know what I mean.
UPDATE: From Eunomia the most basic reason nothing McCain says has credibility:
Even among McCain critics, there are some who still insist on coming up with excuses for the former media darling, and they echo the excuses journalists have made for McCain for years: sure, he’s lying about this or that, but he’s clearly uncomfortable doing it, which proves that he’s actually a good guy. More recently, McCain has seemed angrier and grumpier than usual, prompting the same excuses: he doesn’t enjoy doing this kind of campaigning, and it shows, which somehow makes it better. This has been the strange ethical standard applied to McCain for as long as I can remember. According to this odd view, if someone is not very proficient at lying and smearing his opponents and gives the impression that even he knows what he’s saying is nonsense, that somehow proves that he is honest and decent at heart. The correct view is exactly the opposite–if McCain knows the truth, doesn’t really believe what he’s saying and tells lies unconvincingly, that is evidence of the far deeper corruption of the man. Instead of being badly misguided or misinformed, he willfully says things that he knows have no merit or that he knows are unworthy of anyone in his position. In short, being a bad smear artist does not make someone ethical or honorable; it makes him unethical and incompetent.
And Cindy says that Obama has run the dirtiest campaign in U.S. history. What is it about Republicans and their beam-in-the-eye syndrome which compels them to accuse Dems of doing what the GOP is doing are even when the Dems are not? Is it simply naive projection, or is it a conscious strategy to neutralize public perception about how awful their behavior is?