Tuesday night's second presidential debate was an eye-opener, if you kept your mind open and your expectations not too high. Our analysis on These Days was an eye-opener for me because although I actually enjoyed the exchanges, several of our callers found the debate boring and uninspired. My comment at the end of our analysis to the effect that it's hard to be inspired when you are experiencing a hangover, was itself inspired by these observations from debate moderator Tom Brokaw:

Sen. Obama, as we begin, very quickly, our discussion period, President Bush, you'll remember, last summer, said that "Wall Street got drunk." A lot of people now look back and think the federal government got drunk and, in fact, the American consumers got drunk. (full transcript)

That's where the hangover comes in.  And hangover cures range from "the hair of the dog" to various nauseating concoctions. Unfortunately, with the credit market and lending institutions totally frozen, the dog's hair just isn't available to Joe Six-Pack. But here are some nauseating concoctions to contemplate. As the saying goes, choose your poison:

• Completely replace Congress. That means don't vote for any incumbents who were in office when the financial meltdown began and accelerated.
• Legislate paybacks from CEO's of failed lending institutions who earned eight or nine-figure salaries.
• Pull back our troops from overseas assignments and limit Pentagon spending to within the approved new, tighter and more restrictive budget forced by the financial crisis.
• Require any borrower to prove without a shadow of a doubt that he/she/they have the income to pay back the loan.
• Mandate one credit card per person with a low limit and to be paid off within a short deadline (one to two months).
• "Waste not, want not." Time for frugality, even though President Bush advised us to "go out and shop" after 9/11, according to Senator Obama's statement in that second debate.
• Dump those gas guzzlers once and for all and turn to public transportation or, better yet, walking and bikes.
• Give up the American dream and move in with your in-laws.

And do let me know if any of the above work. I'm rooting for all of us.

Each morning this week, nervous Americans awakened to news that yet another financial institution is in rough waters or has already hit bottom and been wiped out. We waited to see if the federal government would toss a life preserver to keep an insurance conglomerate or a massive lender or a decades-old brokerage firm afloat. Imagine that! Private enterprise looking to the feds to come to the rescue and bail them out - what a concept. 

Of course, the presidential candidates weighed in on the crisis. Senator Obama insists that the Federal Reserve must protect families that count on insurance (the AIG disaster), but not salvage the shareholders or management who profited during good times. Senator McCain acknowledges that regulation needs to be streamlined and is calling for a commission to study the problem. Meanwhile, he remains opposed to the federal bailout of AIG.

As the crisis deepens, the presidential rhetoric on the economy will develop new criticisms of the opposition, new ways of laying blame, and, we hope, new approaches to solutions. At this juncture, it appears that McCain is not defending deregulation even as Obama points to the flaws of economic policies which give Wall Street free rein.

In just a bit more than three weeks, I'll be on a flight to Denver to cover the Democratic Convention where Senator Barack Obama is expected to be that party's nominee for president of the United States. This journalist is getting very excited. Then a week later, I'll fly from Denver to Minneapolis to report on the Republican Convention and Senator John McCain's official acknowledgment as the GOP contender for the highest office in the land. My excitement grows and here are the reasons:

Although no convention since 1952 has gone past the first ballot to agree on a nominee, I recall the excitement of the 1960 Democratic Convention at the Los Angeles Sports Arena when an opening day demonstration in favor of Adlai Stevenson was so wildly exuberant that my skirt was torn by an out-of-control Stevenson enthusiast. I was covering that convention (as a novice assistant producer) for NBC's Today Show and I still can call up memories of the event and the glamour provided by the Kennedy clan, Frank Sinatra and the rest of the rat pack. Eleanor Roosevelt had proposed a Stevenson-Kennedy ticket. But the Kennedy youth and charisma won the day. Might Obama face a challenge on that first ballot?

Back in October, when the Democratic nomination for president was still in question, Hillary Clinton's pollster claimed that if Clinton were the Democratic nominee, 24 percent of Republican women would vote for her. That same month, the Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg poll found that if John McCain were the Republican nominee, 20 percent of Republican women would vote for Barack Obama while 11 percent would cast their votes for Clinton. And this month's Gallup poll showed Democratic women favoring Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama 49 to 45 percent.  In fact, CNN reported that 17 percent of Clinton's supporters (read women) would support McCain if she weren't chosen as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee and another 22 percent wouldn't vote in November.

What's the significance of all these numbers? To me and, I would presume, to the strategists for both Obama and McCain, it's time for a big push to gather up all that X chromosome support. Here are some suggestions for Senator McCain:

• "Older" women remember too well what it was like in the '70s to be passed over in the workplace, despite experience, knowledge, and preparation. Remind that group repeatedly that you have decades of experience in life as well as in government, that you are well-prepared to be president, and don't deserve to be passed over this time.
• Clinton, the fighter, won increasing support from women. You may have to reach way back into your memory bank for that fighting spirit. But the results could be worth the effort.
• Pro-life Democrats have been looking for a landing place since the abortion issue grabbed the national spotlight some 35 years ago when they no longer agreed with their party's pro-choice platform. Your pro-life stance fits theirs and could convince them to cross party lines.

And for Obama, I have the following recommendations:

• Women enjoy their hard-won power in the workplace and at home. So play up your female-centered family and the influences of your mother, grandmother, wife, and mother-in-law on your life, as suggested by your campaign spokes-woman (sic) Linda Douglass.
• You need to counter the growing hate emails claiming you are a radical Muslim, particularly for women want clarity on this issue. In San Diego this month, your half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng, PhD, will talk about you at a fund-raiser. Might be a good idea to have her and other surrogates address the religion question head-on for broader audiences and get some media coverage for those events.
• Point out loudly and often your pro-choice credentials and your support from NARAL Pro-Choice America. Here is a clear enticement for women who cannot support a pro-life candidate to turn to you in November.

And do let me know how this all works out.

National Democratic Chairman Howard Dean has a problem. It's the hate spewing forth from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's campaigns that is dividing the Democratic Party and could destroy its chances to take back the White House. He wants the undeclared superdelegates to make up their minds yesterday, certainly well before the August nominating convention, and put one candidate over the top.

In February, I wrote about the options available to the Democratic superdelegates as they individually figure out which candidate to support. I omitted one major element in determining how to decide their vote, and that is pressure from their party leaders. Before the wrenching personal attacks by the candidates escalate to the point where both are so badly damaged that a November win becomes remote, those leaders must intervene.

So, who are they? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have a great deal to lose if the Republicans benefit from a Democratic meltdown at a divided National Convention: Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Pelosi and Reid are the natural leaders -- but can they short circuit the process without making things worse? Neither has yet come forth with an endorsement. After all, they are active politicians who run the risk of alienating a possible future president.

But consider this: Others are! Nobel Laureate and super superdelegate Al Gore could endorse either candidate and thus powerfully influence the as-yet uncommitted superdelegates. Or, if Democratic unity can't be achieved and the presidency barrels toward John McCain, the delegates at the Democratic National Convention might let the warring candidates loose and nominate the former vice president. He has said that the only way he would return to politics would be as a candidate for president. Politics does have strange twists and turns, and hate is destructive.

On election day, the first report I received outside of San Diego came from a friend.  It said: "our daughter Sally said the polling place in her neighborhood in L.A. was swarming with smiling young people voting for Obama."  Then I heard from a young cousin who wrote: “Since I only had one dot to fill in, and I wanted my vote for Obama to count in the great closely contested state of Connecticut, I filled in that dot like there was no tomorrow; you couldn’t find a drop of white with a microscope.” That’s enthusiasm!  Earlier, I heard a KPBS reporter phoning in from the South Bay where young Democrats were at the polls voting for Obama.  Their middle-aged mothers and aunts supported Clinton.

In our age-conscious society where youth drives television programming, fashions, and even language, how important will age be in deciding the race for president?

Will young people favor the youngest candidate?  And if so, what would this mean for really young Republicans?  Might they switch party allegiances in order to avoid filling in the oval next to John McCain’s name?  The 71-year-old acknowledged the age challenge at the start of his campaign, and vowed to turn it into an advantage.  Read “experience and authenticity” instead of old. Apparently, based on the results of Super Tuesday, he did. 

Now we come to the Obama/Clinton showdown.  Neither candidate is a clear winner after Super Tuesday.  In the months ahead, both will be strategizing around race, gender, experience, vision, personality, issues, and age. National polls asked if older Americans were more ready to consider a woman president or a black president.  The answers seemed to favor Hillary Clinton. In another pre-Super Tuesday poll of likely New York State voters, younger voters favored Obama while older voters planned to cast their ballots for Clinton.  When the votes were counted, Clinton indeed came out ahead in New York State.

So, here’s a question worth some thought: if Clinton is the Democratic candidate, will a significant number of young Democratic voters not vote in the November general election, thus shrinking participation from Democrats?  And, might some older Democratic voters be tempted to consider the older candidate, even if it means switching parties to vote for a Republican? Could age then determine who will be our next president?