TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Wall Street rebounded today: "The Dow Jones industrial average added 485 points, according to early tallies, recovering some of the record 777 points lost the day before. If the gains hold, it would be the third-biggest one-day point advance for the indicator in its history. The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 5% and the Nasdaq composite gained about 5.3%."

* The news was not all good, however, as credit markets remain frozen.

* A long-term security agreement is still pending between the Maliki government and the Bush administration. The sticking point? Civil jurisdiction over U.S. troops.

* New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is in his second term, and the city has a two-term limit. He is, apparently, going to seek a third term anyway.

* Did Gingrich screw over Boehner on the bailout vote?

* The television audience for the first presidential debate was big, but not nearly as big as expected.

* McCain certainly made it sound like he thinks Venezuela is in the Middle East.

* MoveOn.org vs. Tom Brokaw.

* Gwen Ifill broke her ankle today, but she'll still moderate Thursday's debate.

* And on Oct. 16, in support of the Obama campaign, Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel will play their first concert together.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE.... As a rule, there's no point in going after every inane McCain campaign web ad -- there's too many of them, and they're generally not worth the bother -- but as Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld noted, the new one is "so comically misleading that it really is a must-see."

It's too ridiculous to post the video, but the "ad" responds to the heat McCain took for insisting that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong," just as the Wall Street crisis was underway. Here's the script:

Voiceover: Who's Barack Obama? First, Obama attacked McCain.

Then said: "We've got the long term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows."

Voiceover: Strong fundamentals? Is Obama saying McCain's right? Or is Obama saying his own attacks are shameless? Either way, Obama's a hypocrite.

Actually, he's not. The "ad" quotes Obama saying, "We've got the long term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows." But the McCain campaign conveniently shaved off all of the context that changes -- indeed, reverses -- the meaning of the quote. Here's what Obama actually said:

"[We need] a plan that would extend expiring unemployment benefits. For those Americans who have lost their jobs and have been working hard to find a new one, but haven't found one yet. That's part of the change we need. And then after this immediate problem, we've got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows. Change means tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses that deserve it. As President I am going to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups."

Obama was talking about the "long-term fundamentals" as part of his economic plan, not of today's economy. Either McCain campaign officials have the listening comprehension skills of a toddler, or they're lying, again, to the public, and cynically counting on voters being too stupid to see through their nonsense.

Let's also not lose sight of the big picture. When candidates on the Republican ticket tell voters something provocative, it doesn't count because it's "gotcha journalism." When candidates on the Democratic ticket say something unremarkable, but it's wrenched from context to change its meaning, it's legitimate public discourse.

I suppose it's possible for the McCain campaign to be more pathetic, but it's hard to see how.

THE POPULARITY OF THE BAILOUT (OR LACK THEREOF).... Most of the players in the political arena seemed to realize, and openly acknowledge, that the bailout package was pretty unpopular with voters. Principals admitted that this was a bill that wouldn't go over well at home, but argued, with varying degrees of persuasion, that it was necessary anyway.

Indeed, after the dust settled yesterday, more than a few lawmakers told reporters that they were swayed, at least in part, by constituent complaints about the legislation. Very few people were calling their representative's office to urge him/her to vote for the bill.

But then I noticed the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, and I'm not sure what to think of public opinion on this.

Most Americans see the current financial situation as a "crisis," and there is overwhelming concern that the failure of the House of Representatives to pass the economic recovery package will deepen the problem, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But the poll also revealed significant public concern with the bill Congress rejected yesterday, as few voters said the package did enough to protect "ordinary Americans," and nearly half said it did not go far enough to shore up the nation's economy.

As is often the case discerning public opinion, reading these results was a little confusing. The public was largely split on whether the bill has merit -- 47% opposed the package, 45% supported it.

But the same poll found that nearly nine in 10 Americans said Congress' failure to pass the measure "could lead to a more severe economic decline."

What's more, Isaac Chotiner noted that voters are inclined to hold Republicans responsible for the bill's failure, but given the other results, it's hard to know which party, if any, benefits from this perception.

So, what are we left with? A fair number of Americans think Congress should have passed a bill they're opposed to? They "blame" Republicans for scuttling the deal, but no one knows whether that helps the GOP or hurts it?

Nate Silver has more on polling and the bailout (or "rescue"). It's fair to say there's deep public skepticism about the plan, but it's far from clear exactly how Americans want policy makers to proceed.

CAN BOEHNER LEAD?.... House Minority Leader John Boehner was part of the recent bailout negotiations, representing the interests and priorities of House Republicans. The word "leader" is, after all, right there in his title. He signed onto an agreement and took it to his caucus for their blessing.

It was, of course, a test of his credibility, not to mention his leadership skills. Obviously, given the result, we know things didn't go well for Boehner, as two-thirds of his caucus ignored his wishes and made him look foolish (so foolish that he had to insist Republicans voted against the bill because Speaker Pelosi hurt their feelings).

So, can Boehner keep his job?

The bruising tally -- coming on the heels of a weeklong revolt -- had some GOP members asking privately whether Boehner can hold on to his leadership post. Boehner said he's confident of his job, but the vote clearly took its toll.

The leader lost the support of some of his closest allies in the House -- including Iowa Rep. Tom Latham and California Rep. Devin Nunes, two drinking buddies who helped lay the foundation for Boehner's political comeback in 2006.

Another Boehner ally, Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter of Michigan, physically turned his back on the leader during a tense closed-door GOP conference meeting Sunday night.

People who were in the room said McCotter left abruptly after Boehner told members not to attack one another. Boehner tried to reach out to McCotter as he left. McCotter kept walking.

"I have some members who would do anything for me, and I talked to them, and it just killed them, absolutely killed them, when they told me they couldn't vote yes," Boehner told a small group of reporters after Monday's stunning floor defeat.

Actually, those Republicans who opposed the package yesterday didn't seem especially troubled at all. "Absolutely killed them"? They looked perfectly content to me.

Stepping back, though, something doesn't add up here. House Republicans chose Boehner to lead and represent them, but on the year's biggest vote, they blew him off. Boehner told the White House and congressional Dems he could deliver, but when push came to shove, he couldn't -- Boehner and his caucus were in two very different places.

Moving forward, then, why even put Boehner at the negotiating table? Either he speaks for his caucus or he doesn't, and as of yesterday, he doesn't. Doesn't that necessarily suggest House Republicans should send someone else to speak on their behalf? And that this person, not Boehner, should be the party leader?

EXPERIENCE VS. NEW IDEAS.... At a campaign event in Columbus, Ohio yesterday, Sarah Palin told a crowd she's looking forward to meeting Joe Biden on Thursday. "I've never met him before," Palin said. "But I've been hearing about his senate speeches since I was in like 2nd grade." The Republican crowd seemed to think this was hilarious.

Immediately after the speech, CBS's Katie Couric met up with Palin and asked about her comments. CBS just sent over the transcript of what we'll see this evening:

Couric: You made a funny comment, you've said you have been listening to Joe Biden's speeches since you were in second grade.

Palin: It's been since like '72, yah.

Couric: You have a 72-year-old running mate, is that kind of a risky thing to say, insinuating that Joe Biden's been around awhile?

Palin: Oh no, it's nothing negative at all. He's got a lot of experience and just stating the fact there, that we've been hearing his speeches for all these years. So he's got a tremendous amount of experience and, you know, I'm the new energy, the new face, the new ideas and he's got the experience based on many many years in the Senate and voters are gonna have a choice there of what it is that they want in these next four years.

I see. New energy and new ideas vs. many years in the Senate. Voters, Palin said, are going to have to choose between the two.

She is aware of the dynamic surrounding the two presidential candidates, isn't she?

Update: An emailer reminds me of something important that I neglected to mention -- Palin doesn't have any "new ideas." The last time she unveiled a "new idea," it turned out to be one of Barack Obama's old ideas.

WOULD MCCAIN 'SUSPEND' AGAIN?.... John McCain appeared on "Fox & Friends" this morning, where he appeared open to the idea of "suspending" his presidential campaign (it's tempting to say "again," but we know McCain never actually suspended anything).

Steve Doocy got the ball rolling with some odd commentary, crediting McCain personally for focusing Americans' attention on the Wall Street crisis, and improving the bill for Republicans. He seemed to urge McCain to stop campaigning, so he can "emerge the leader."

"I'll do whatever I can do to make this thing work," McCain responded, adding, "I will put my presidential campaign on the back burner if necessary and do anything."

When confronted with the fact that the crisis has worsened since McCain's initial so-called "suspension," McCain responded, "I'll do whatever is necessary and whatever my Republican colleagues in the administration and others ask me to do to help." He then bashed Barack Obama for a while on issues unrelated to the Wall Street crisis.

McCain also mentioned at least twice that Congress isn't doing anything today because of a religious holiday. This, of course, led me to wonder why McCain wouldn't want to take advantage of this break to help work towards an agreement.

To be sure, I realize there's no genuine reason for McCain to suspend his campaign. If he did, it wouldn't make any substantive difference. That McCain would even entertain the idea of putting his campaign "on the back burner" only helps reinforce the notion that he's pretty far gone.

For that matter, last week's gimmick did nothing to help his campaign, and most voters saw through the transparency of McCain's craven tactics.

That said, it is kind of interesting to see McCain struggle with a basic question: if it was necessary to "suspend" last week, why is it unnecessary this week? The longer it takes for McCain to come up with a compelling answer to that question, the worse his judgment appears.

PALIN AND THE SUPREME COURT.... Howard Kurtz generated some interest yesterday when he reported that as bad as Sarah Palin's interview(s) with Katie Couric were, the "worst may be yet to come for Palin; sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing."

How much worse could it be? Apparently, one of the problematic responses has to do with the Supreme Court.

The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.

After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.

Now, as far as I can tell, this portion of the interview hasn't been aired yet, so it's hard to know whether it's excruciating or not. Responding to a legitimate question with pure silence certainly sounds awkward, but it's hard to say how awful it is until it's aired.

Putting that aside, though, how embarrassing is it for Palin not to be able to identify Supreme Court rulings other than Roe?

Atrios raised a fair point: "I have some sympathy for Palin. Plenty of members of Congress don't actually know a damn thing about Supreme Court history or details about particular decisions, but what they do know (usually) is just enough to satisfy the Tom Brokaws of the world and move on to the next topic. They're trained in the trivia important to the locals, but they don't actually know anything."

Quite right. Palin didn't go to law school, never took an interest in constitutional law, but still probably knows about as much as plenty of lawmakers on the Hill.

But it's a reminder that Palin is struggling on two parallel levels: she's painfully ignorant and she hasn't learned how to hide her painful ignorance. Even if she couldn't remember the names of specific cases, Palin would have likely sounded fine if she spoke in vague terms about court rulings on religious liberty, or terrorism, or civil rights, or the economy, or anything.

Or perhaps even the reverse -- she could throw out the names of a few famous cases, even if she's shaky on the details. Off the top of one's head, anyone in a high-ranking government office could probably mention Brown vs. Board of Education, Bush vs. Gore, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and Dred Scott, whether one could discuss them in any depth or not.

But Palin couldn't name the cases and couldn't talk her way out of it.

Don't feel too sorry for her -- she volunteered for this gig.

SOMETIMES, A DIG IS JUST A DIG.... There was a point a couple of months ago in which campaign reporters, at the McCain campaign's urging, began to see the word "confused" as an ageist attack. So, if someone were to point out that John McCain is confused about whether the U.S. can maintain a long-term troop presence in Iraq, this was necessarily insulting, whether he's confused or not.

The argument was premised on the notion that those of us who aren't senior citizens, apparently, don't get confused. In reality, the McCain campaign was so concerned about the age issue, it pressed reporters into hair-trigger sensitivity on the issue.

We're seeing it again today. Robert Gibbs, the Obama campaign's communications director, appeared on MSNBC this morning, talking about the crisis on Wall Street. Time's Mark Halperin asked about the political implications and recent polling trends, and Gibbs responded, "What I do think in the last two and a half to three weeks -- including that last debate -- that people got a sense of who is steady in a crisis and quite frankly who's erratic in a crisis."

The "Morning Joe" panel pressed Gibbs on the "erratic" claim, and he responded, "Just yesterday, John McCain said we shouldn't fix blame. He took a breath and then fixed blame. He said the fundamentals of our economy are strong, and he flip-flopped. He opposed the bail-out of AIG, and then he supported it. This guy zig-zags. Look, if he's driving a car, get off the sidewalk."

People chuckled, and the show went on.

But in response, some observers are crying "foul." The Politico's Jonathan Martin said Gibbs took an "age swipe" at McCain, and his comments were intended to remind voters of "images of elderly drivers who have plowed into pedestrians in recent years." Similarly, Time's Michael Scherer blasted Gibbs for deliberately, and foolishly, offending older voters.

Gibbs is a very sharp communications director, and I suppose it's possible that his comments had an underlying meaning, but I kind of doubt it. The message he wanted to emphasize was the "erratic" line, not the driving metaphor, which was an obvious afterthought.

Besides, aren't there dangerous young drivers, too? Maybe the political world is being a little overly sensitive on this?

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The Obama campaign unveiled another two-minute ad this morning, emphasizing Obama's message on the economy. It did not specifically address the crisis on Wall Street.

* The AFL-CIO is hitting McCain on healthcare with a new direct mail piece.

* By a wide margin, voters blame Republican lawmakers for yesterday's developments.

* In North Carolina, Public Policy Polling shows Obama leading McCain by two, 47% to 45%.

* In Florida, Rasmussen shows Obama and McCain tied at 47% each.

* In Colorado, Rasmussen shows Obama leading McCain by one, 49% to 48%.

* In Pennsylvania, Rasmussen shows Obama leading McCain by eight, 50% to 42%.

* Early voting is underway in Ohio.

THE RNC VS. THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN.... John McCain not only supported the bailout package rejected by the House, he bragged about his role in getting the bill to the floor yesterday. His running mate suggested the bill was necessary to avert a depression. His campaign credited McCain personally for the bill's very existence.

So it was a little odd to see the Republican National Committee come out with a new ad this morning blasting Barack Obama for the bailout package.

The Republican Party's independent expenditure arm is up with an ad that hints at opposing the bailout, and links Obama's spending plans, in a vague but ominous way, to it.

The ad was expected to air in Indiana and Virginia, along with more traditional battlegrounds of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Let me get this straight. The Republican president supported the bill. The Republican Senate leadership supported the bill. The Republican House leadership supported the bill. The Republican presidential nominee supported the bill. And the Republican National Committee runs an ad insisting that Obama's bailout package "will make the problem worse."

Indeed, the RNC unveiled its breathtaking ad literally within minutes of John McCain telling Fox News that in order to get increased support for the bill, "We're going to have to change enough Republican and Democrats' minds.""

So, simultaneously, the Republican Party is campaigning against the bill, and Republican presidential candidate is campaigning in support of the bill. Brilliant.

The Obama campaign responded, "For John McCain's party to demagogue a rescue plan that he supports in order to score cheap political points is not only dishonest and dishonorable, it is the height of irresponsibility on a day when we urgently need to pass that plan to prevent an economic catastrophe. So much for country first."

Here's a question for reporters to ask McCain today: should the RNC pull its ad and apologize?

WHEN THE GOP LOSES DAVID BROOKS.... Yesterday, in the aftermath of the fiasco on the House floor, my friend Kevin Drum explained, "The Republican Party is now officially hostage to a band of primitive conservative ideologues whose knowledge of economics was already outdated when Christians were being fed to lions. They are simply beyond belief."

It appears that the New York Times' David Brooks, in a pleasant surprise, has come to largely the same conclusion, specifically about the House GOP caucus.

It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they've taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it.

I've spoken with several House Republicans over the past few days and most admirably believe in free-market principles. What's sad is that they still think it's 1984. They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy.

It's nice of Brooks to notice. Better late than never.

On a related note, Brad DeLong added yesterday, "This Republican Party needs to be burned, razed to the ground, and the furrows sown with salt..."

Given recent events, it's hardly an unreasonable prescription.

IS THIS THING ON?.... A pattern seems to be emerging -- every day the crisis on Wall Street grows in severity, every day the president makes a public statement calling for congressional action, and every day the president's remarks are largely ignored.

This morning kept the trend alive, with a four-minute Bush speech from the White House.

"Producing legislation is complicated, and it can be contentious. It matters little what a path a bill takes to become law. What matters is that we get a law. We're at a critical moment for our economy, and we need legislation that decisively address [sic] the troubled assets now clogging the financial system, helps lenders resume the flow of credit to consumers and businesses, and allows the American economy to get moving again.

"I recognize this is a difficult vote for members of Congress. Many of them don't like the fact that our economy has reached this point, and I understand that. But the reality is that we are in an urgent situation, and the consequences will grow worse each day if we do not act. The dramatic drop in the stock market that we saw yesterday will have a direct impact on the retirement accounts, pension funds, and personal savings of millions of our citizens. And if our nation continues on this course, the economic damage will be painful and lasting. [...]

"As much as we might wish the situation were different, our country is not facing a choice between government action and the smooth functioning of the free market. We're facing a choice between action and the real prospect of economic hardship for millions of Americans. And for the financial security of every American, Congress must act."

As a practical matter, I'm not sure who Bush's target audience is. Voters don't like him, and lawmakers don't trust him. The president has spent a fair amount of time in recent days trying to lobby Republican members of Congress. Yesterday, we saw just how much sway he still has on the Hill.

After the president's remarks this morning, New York Magazine's John Heilemann told MSNBC, "I don't think that comforts anybody. I don't think that moves a single vote. With due respect and sympathy for the man, that was the picture of a beaten dog. That was the picture of presidential impotence right there."

Ouch.

MULLING OVER COMPETING OPTIONS.... No one seems to have any idea what's going to happen next with regards to congressional action on the Wall Street crisis, but ABC News reported last night on the competing approaches moving forward after yesterday's debacle.

# 1 -- Muscle Bailout Bill Through House: Some leaders suggest those House Republicans on the fence will be swayed by seeing what the markets do tomorrow, which could be more bad news. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped over 700 points today as the administration's bailout bill failed in Congress This option would see House leaders try again to muscle through the votes they need to get the $700 billion bailout bill passed.

#2 -- Pass Bailout in Senate First: Some Senate and House leaders have been talking about letting the Senate go first and pass the bailout package, ABC News has learned. There appears to be broader support in the Senate for the bailout package. This option would see the Senate vote first which would increase the pressure on the House to pass the Bush administration's bailout bill.

#3 -- Make Small Tweaks to the Bill: Congressional leaders wonder if perhaps there are a couple of small tweaks they can make to the package that would bring along the 12 votes they lost the vote by. Option A, sources say, could be adding a line that some economists have said is absolutely necessary for the FDIC to guarantee all deposits in transaction accounts, not just up to $100,000. That would deal with the credit crunch and it would be quite popular, some on Capitol Hill argue. Option B would be eliminating the mark-to-market rule that many Republicans and conservatives complain about, which ensures financial decision-makers must show their losses in real time.

#4 -- Get More Democrats On Board: Finally, one other unlikely option talked about on Capitol Hill is to try to pass the bill almost entirely with the Democratic majority in the House. That would require adding a major stimulus package favored by Democrats, infrastructure spending, unemployment insurance spending, and heating and food stamp assistance for low-income Americans.

Right about now, that fourth option looks awfully appealing. The House Republican caucus has proven itself to be ... what's the phrase I'm looking for ... stark raving mad. So why bother working to make radicals happy? The Democratic leadership could scrap yesterday's bill, put together a truly progressive package, and pass it with or without Republican support. The Senate might be trickier, but if Dems could overcome a filibuster, the president might, under these circumstances, not want to risk a veto. (Robert Kuttner even has a few ideas about what a new-and-improved Democratic package might look like.)

But this is, at this point, unlikely. The Democratic leadership has said, repeatedly, that it's committed to finding a bipartisan solution, even if the GOP caucus has lost its collective mind.

CRY BABIES.... When the Wall Street Journal's editorial page mocks House Republicans, you know the GOP has stepped in it.

"Their immediate response was to say that many of their Members turned against the bill at the last minute because Ms. Pelosi gave her nasty speech," the Journal's explained. "So they are saying that Republicans chose to oppose something they think is in the national interest merely because of a partisan slight. Thank heaven these guys weren't at Valley Forge."

To be sure, the House Republican leadership was in a bind yesterday -- they'd failed miserably, with the eyes of the world upon them, and accepting responsibility apparently wasn't an option. They needed to blame someone, and time was of the essence. "How do we blame Speaker Pelosi for Republicans rejecting a rescue plan?" a GOP member no doubt asked. "I know! We'll say her speech was mean and left us no choice!" another probably added.

And that's exactly what they did. The top three leaders of the House Republican caucus -- all of whom supported the legislation -- held a press conference to say, earnestly and sincerely, that a "partisan" speech led at least a dozen House Republican lawmakers to vote against a package they would have otherwise supported. Seriously.

It never seemed to occur to them that a) they were implicitly accepting responsibility for the debacle; and b) they were effectively admitting that they were screwing over the country because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings.

Barney Frank was in rare form: "Frankly, that's an accusation against my Republican colleagues I would have never thought of making. Here's the story: there's a terrible crisis affecting the American economy. We have come together on a bill to alleviate the crisis. And because somebody hurt their feelings, they decide to punish the country. I mean, I would not have imputed that degree of pettiness and hypersensitivity.... [T]hink about this. 'Somebody hurt my feelings, so I will punish the country.' That's hardly plausible. And there are 12 Republican members who were ready to stand up for the economic interest of America, but not if anybody insulted them. I'll make an offer. Give me those 12 people's names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are and maybe they'll now think about the country."

If there were any justice, the House Republican caucus would never live this one down.

ALL QUESTIONS ARE 'GOTCHA' QUESTIONS.... Campaigning in Philadelphia on Saturday night, Sarah Palin fielded a few questions from local voters. A grad student asked Palin if she believed U.S. forces should be prepared to cross the Afghan border into Pakistan, and Palin responded, "If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should."

That, of course, is Barack Obama's position, which John McCain has repeatedly denounced. It even garnered a stern lecture at Friday's debate.

On Sunday, McCain said Palin's answer didn't count because it wasn't "a definitive policy statement." Last night, McCain and Palin sat down together with CBS's Katie Couric -- yes, again -- and came up with a new excuse.

"[L]ook, I understand this day and age 'gotcha' journalism," McCain said. "Is that a pizza place? In a conversation with someone who you didn't hear -- the question very well, you don't know the context of the conversation. Grab a phrase. Governor Palin and agree that you don't announce that you're going to attack another country."

When Couric asked if Palin was sorry she had made the statement, McCain again jumped in before Palin could answer. "Wait a minute," he said. "Before you say, 'is she sorry she said it,' this was a 'gotcha' sound bite that, look, no, she was in a conversation with a group of people and talking back and forth. And, I'll let Governor Palin speak for herself."

Palin added, "In the context, this was a voter, a constituent, hollering out a question from across an area asking, 'What are you gonna do about Pakistan? You better have an answer to Pakistan.' I said we're gonna do what we have to do to protect the United States of America." She added, "That this is all about 'gotcha' journalism."

All of this is completely absurd. First, Palin did more than just recommit to protecting the country -- she specifically said we should "absolutely" cross the border to stop terrorists from moving into Pakistan.

Second, what are these bizarre rules McCain is coming up with? When a voter asks a topical, pertinent question, it's "gotcha journalism." When a candidate gives an answer while talking "back and forth" with a "group of people," it doesn't count.

This is insane. Palin isn't a victim here -- a voter asked a question, and she answered it. Palin, in other words, said something in public and the media reported it. Indeed, she said something important about a pressing national security issue, so the media is supposed to report it.

The Republican ticket is actually getting worse. I didn't think that was possible.

MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The Dow fell nearly 778 points today, or almost 7%. It was the worst single-day point loss in American history. The S&P 500 dropped 8.7% and the Nasdaq fell 9.1%.

* As of today, the Dow Jones is lower now than it was the day Bush took office in 2001.

* This afternoon, responding to the economic crisis, the Obama campaign issued a statement calling for calm, encouraging lawmakers to keep working, and urging investors not to panic. The McCain campaign attacked Obama. It's a reminder that one can tell a lot about a person's character by how they respond to adversity.

* No one has any idea what's going to happen next.

* The climate crisis continues to grow increasingly scary.

* The New York Sun is closing up tomorrow.

* This attack on a mosque in Dayton, Ohio, is the height of insanity.

* Maureen Dowd is apparently no longer welcome aboard the McCain campaign plane.

* Have I mentioned lately how fantastic it is to see that Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show is off to such an amazing start? Her ratings last week showed her biggest audiences to date.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

ISN'T ANOTHER 'SUSPENSION' NECESSARY?.... This will probably come across as a little snarky because, well, it is. But I have to ask: isn't it incumbent on John McCain to at least pretend to "suspend" his campaign again?

I was just looking back at what McCain said on Thursday, when he insisted that the crisis on Wall Street was so serious, he had no choice but to drop everything, return to Washington, and help play a role in striking a deal.

"I cannot carry on a campaign as though this dangerous situation had not occurred, or as though a solution were at hand, which it clearly is not.... With so much on the line, for America and the world, the debate that matters most right now is taking place in the United States Capitol -- and I intend to join it.

"It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration's proposal to meet the crisis. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time. So I am returning to Washington...."

As we now know, McCain really didn't "suspend" anything, and he didn't play a constructive role in the process. But putting that aside, if McCain keeps campaigning now, as he seems poised to do, wouldn't he necessarily be carrying on "as though this dangerous situation had not occurred"?

In other words, McCain set a standard for himself -- in the midst of a crisis, with little hope of a solution, and with time running out, heading to the campaign trail is not only a mistake, it's selfish. Indeed, it's failing to put "country first." That's the standard he created, and publicly articulated just a few days ago. Now, not so much.

As Noam Scheiber explained:

So the bailout deal collapses and McCain is headed to ... Iowa?

I'm confused. I assumed the "country-first" move would be to suspend his campaign all over again and hunker down in Washington till we worked things out.

It wouldn't even be that hard. McCain can find more than half the votes we need among his home-state colleagues in the House, all of whom voted against the deal.

The bottom line is straightforward enough: McCain "left" the campaign trail on Thursday because of the crisis. As of this afternoon, the crisis is much, much worse.

So, what does McCain plan to do now? Phone it in?

WHEN THE GAMBLER ROLLS SNAKE EYES.... Just yesterday, Lindsey Graham told Fox News, "Thank God John [McCain] came back" to work on the bailout package. Around the same time, McCain's chief campaign strategist was on NBC, bragging that it was John McCain who brought House Republicans to the negotiating table, making a deal likely.

And it was McCain himself, just this morning, who was taking credit for "building a winning bailout coalition -- hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked." McCain assumed victory was at hand, and he was rushing to position himself as the hero who saved the day.

As of this afternoon, John McCain looks pretty foolish.

After bragging today about his role in shaping the economic bailout package, Sen. John McCain made no statement to the press after the defeat of the bill, in part at the hands of House Republicans.

Instead, McCain boarded his Straight Talk Air charter plane, where he sat in front, separated from reporters by a brown curtain, without making a comment on the bill's defeat.

The McCain campaign's senior policy adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, issued a statement blaming Democrats and Barack Obama for the Republican failure, but it was so laughably pathetic, no one took it seriously. Holtz-Eakin, demonstrating a degree of hackery that should effectively ruin his reputation forever, insisted, "This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country."

Um, Doug? Most Democrats backed the bill that McCain supported, while House Republicans -- you know, the ones McCain brought to the table as part of his triumph -- rejected it, on a nearly 2-to-1 margin. Who put politics ahead of country?

A lot of people lost quite a bit today, but in a purely political context, few look as ridiculous right now as John McCain. MSNBC's Chris Matthews offered some on-air analysis this afternoon, and highlighted the fact that McCain positioned himself as the head of the Republican Party, but couldn't get his party to follow him. "He's like a cavalry commander who said 'Charge!' and the Republicans went into retreat," Matthews said.

Now, it's worth noting that there's a possible flip-side to all of this. The deal looked pretty solid last week, and then McCain showed up and scuttled the whole thing. This morning, McCain was already dancing in the end zone, so confident in what would happen. But if you're one of the many Americans who hated this bill, might not this help McCain? If he's responsible for the debacle, and you hoped for a debacle, maybe McCain's abject failure looks pretty good?

I don't think so. McCain, his campaign, and his surrogates have invested too much over the last several days in trying to give McCain credit for the bill they just knew would pass. It's simply too late for McCain to turn around now and say, "Guess what? I hated that bill all along!"

McCain "suspended" his campaign to get this bill to the floor -- and then it failed because his friends didn't like it. It's a fiasco that's going to be hard to live down.

THE WRONG FRAME AT THE WRONG TIME.... I can appreciate how ridiculous House Minority Leader John Boehner looks right now. I can even appreciate the fact that the Republican Party is looking desperately for someone to blame. But the GOP really hasn't thought this one through.

Several Republican aides said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had torpedoed any spirit of bipartisanship that surrounded the bill with her scathing speech near the close of the debate that blamed Bush's policies for the economic turmoil.

Without mentioning her by name, Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., No. 3 Republican, said: "The partisan tone at the end of the debate today I think did impact the votes on our side."

Putnam said lawmakers were working "to garner the necessary votes to avoid a financial collapse."

But the defeat was already causing a brutal round of finger-pointing. "We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," House Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.

On its face, this is comically stupid. House Republicans wanted to vote to prevent a financial collapse, the pitch goes, but the Big Bad House Speaker made them mad with a speech. You can read Pelosi's remarks yourself -- if it strikes you as the kind of speech that's worth risking the economy over, let me know.

But more important than that is the truly ridiculous frame Republicans are establishing for themselves by using Pelosi's speech as an excuse for their own failure. The House GOP, for reasons that defy comprehens