Before you all snap at me over the headline above, know this: I mean that tonight's debate was a tie only in the sense that neither candidate scored a knockout blow against his opponent, and neither made any fatal mistake -- or, really, even any sort of truly significant slip-up.

That said, though, I think it's pretty clear that Barack Obama came out of this one as the winner. He was in command throughout the debate. Moreover, he did exactly what he needed to do -- namely, appear presidential, while also coming off as someone voters can relate to and be comfortable with.

John McCain faced a tougher task. He needed -- and now, still needs -- to do something to stem the tide of voters rushing to Obama. He tried to do that tonight by attacking Obama, but for now, those attacks don't seem to have worked. (That's judging by my favorite CNN chart of real-time voter reactions; sometimes these kinds of voter groups don't reveal the way attacks play out in the long term.) If he's going to stay on the attack, he needs to be softer, and warmer, as he does so.

Poor, poor Tom Brokaw. He sounded very hurt when the candidates asked to break the rules of tonight's debate -- but hey, let's face it, he really is just the hired help here.

The rest of the foreign policy discussion, however, was fairly uneventful. Other than a good shot Barack Obama got in at John McCain's "Bomb Iran" song, neither candidate really did much to help themselves or hurt their opponent, and the debate followed largely familiar ground. This is also, it should be noted, an area that just doesn't matter much to voters anymore, at least not compared to the economy.

One audience question tonight has been particularly interesting, at least to me. As CNN puts it in the chyron, the question was, "How will recent economic distress affect U.S. ability to be a peacemaker?"

For the most part, the question was an opportunity for John McCain to shine, and to explain his philosophy on foreign policy, an area where he should be strong. But -- and forgive me another digression into CNN's charting of real-time voter reactions, but it's just so fun, and so useful -- it was interesting to see how he ended what had been a really good answer on a down note by attacking Barack Obama, an attack that CNN's group of uncommitted Ohio voters really didn't seem to like at all.

If foreign policy is an area where McCain should shine, it's, similarly, an area where Obama needs to shine. He needs to convince the voters out there who remain undecided that he can be trusted as commander-in-chief, and that his relative lack of experience in that area isn't an issue. He did a very good job of that tonight. He explained his philosophy well, taking good advantage of the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, and seemed presidential as he did so. His response to McCain's attack -- specifically, to the now-familiar charge that he "doesn't understand" -- was particularly deft. He turned the charge on its head and said he didn't understand why we'd attacked Iraq, since it played no role in 9/11, and in doing so successfully turned McCain's message back against him without seeing defensive or angry.

A week and a half ago, you heard John McCain talk about the $1 million in earmarks Barack Obama has requested for every day he's been in the Senate. Tonight, he came with specifics.

"He voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois," McCain said. And he dropped the joke about bear DNA that flopped at the first debate (in part because he flubbed the delivery, in part because the joke's not that funny).

No matter how he brings the earmark attacks, though, McCain makes it seem like the single biggest problem facing the U.S. government is cutting wasteful earmarks. The issue fits into his Manichean view of politics -- you're either honorable or you're not -- and it puts McCain firmly on the side fighting what he sees as corruption.

But the fact is, earmarks account for only $16 billion out of a $2 trillion federal budget. Even if McCain wrung every single one out of the budget and locked up the lawmakers who requested them, problems with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and, oh, nearly every other big-ticket item would still exist. As Tom Schaller pointed out recently, McCain may just be hoping voters don't notice the difference between $3 million for an overhead projector and $3 billion every week on the Iraq war -- million, billion, it's all the same thing, right?

Once again, since the debate has turned to energy issues, I have to ask -- why isn't Barack Obama bringing up Nevada and Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste storage facility that would be housed in that state? Seems like a wasted opportunity to connect with swing state voters and put a human face on his energy policies.

Neither candidate really scored many points on the energy discussion. Both were a little more halting, a little less fluid than they were in discussing the economy. And while John McCain had an opportunity to get a good jab in on Obama's vote on an energy bill the administration backed, when he took that opportunity he ended up sounding petty and angry.

Speaking of petty and angry -- what's up with Tom Brokaw, who is doing an OK job of keeping the debate under control, but not doing so well at sounding genial while doing it? McCain should probably ratchet down his shots at Brokaw too.

Mark this one down, folks: In tonight's debate, a Democrat was the first politician on stage to mention 9/11 unbidden. (And Rudy Giuliani was nowhere to be seen.)

Actually, Barack Obama's mention of the terror attacks worked pretty well, as he fit it fairly seamlessly into a discussion of how Americans might have to sacrifice during the current economic crisis, and how President Bush didn't ask the country to do that. On the other hand, John McCain's response to the same question seemed outdated. Fighting against earmarks worked for him at one point, but given the scale of the problem the country's facing right now, it doesn't really resonate right now.

McCain managed to make his entire answer to a question about the country's habit of bad debt and easy credit about Obama's tax plans. The answer was one long accusation against Obama; McCain contended that he'll raise taxes. As you'll know if you're a frequent reader of this blog, that's not really true -- most Americans, in fact, would see their taxes go down under a President Obama. (There's a question as to whether either candidate could stick to their plan, given the economic situation, but that's a separate issue.)

Obama didn't look great trying to get Tom Brokaw to bend the rules and give him time to respond, but he made up for that by countering effectively during his answer to the next question, which was about reforming Social Security and Medicare. (McCain then got up and made a joke about Obama not answering the question, which was ironic.)

As always, I'm absolutely captivated by the chart CNN's running showing the real-time reactions of uncommitted Ohio voters to the debate. (What can I say? I like bright colors and shiny things.) And what I'm noticing right now, most of all -- Barack Obama is really connecting, and John McCain is not.

Most importantly for McCain, if he's going to continue to attack Obama, he really needs to land those attacks, he needs to make them stick. So far, voters aren't reacting all that positively to his criticisms of his opponent. And as long as this debate stays on the economy, that's going to be a problem for him, especially because the shots of him on the attack while Obama sits smiling comfortably are not helping.

One brief aside: If I were in the McCain camp, I'd be angry at the debate organizers over their furniture selection. The chairs are too high for the Republican nominee. Obviously, that's a little thing, but remember that during a debate, visuals really do matter. (See, e.g., Richard Nixon vs. John F. Kennedy.) And while Obama seems comfortable and natural perched on his chair, McCain looks awkward, uncomfortable and -- perhaps most important of all -- short.

Well, if you were wondering whether John McCain might finally be willing to look at his opponent during a debate, your answer came very early tonight -- the two candidates shook hands when they came out, and McCain even looked Barack Obama in the eye, albeit briefly. (And then he even looked at Obama again during his answer to moderator Tom Brokaw's first question)

With that done, though, the debate started out from the very first question on ground that's favorable to Obama: the economy. And he took advantage.

In fact, both candidates look very comfortable with the town hall format; both are engaging, and largely seem warm and comfortable with the audience. McCain did take a crack at Brokaw for no apparent reason, however. That didn't go over well, and seemed odd, given the image he needs to project. (Bashing the media is all well and good, but not at the expense of appearing calm and collected.)

The second question was also on the economy -- specifically on the bailout. If the debate continues this way (and given the continued troubles in the market, that wouldn't be surprising), then Obama's at an advantage. It does give McCain the opportunity he needs to fight to convince voters that they should trust him, not Obama, to solve the crisis. But he's been unsuccessful at that so far, and there's no reason thus far to believe that will change tonight, so focus on the issue will help Obama.

We're now less than an hour away from the second presidential debate of this general election cycle. It's not likely that this will have a major impact on the election -- ultimately, debates have never been shown to have a significant effect on the polls -- but right now, John McCain would very much like it to.

The conventional wisdom has always been that it's the underdog who wants to debate, and right now McCain is very much the underdog. With that in mind, one interesting thing to watch here will be how the format affects the night's events, and the candidates. Tonight's debate will be conducted in a town hall style; typically, that would mean the advantage goes to McCain, who's always been strong in town halls.

On the other hand, though, there's the question of whether McCain will be able to push his campaign's most recent message effectively in this format. Democratic lawyer Bob Barnett, who negotiated ground rules on Obama's behalf, told Politico, "There's a lot of talk about nastiness and personal attacks, but in this type of format, that is a huge mistake. You have to be respectful to the audience questioners, you have to be respectful of the Internet questioners, and you have to have the viewers who are watching feel that you are responding to the voters and the citizens who are asking the questions."

McCain aides have reportedly said they don't expect the candidate to bring up Obama's ties to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who's been a hot topic on the right lately. That said, though, they did leave the Republican nominee an out, saying he would discuss Ayers if the subject came up.

The Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet has the rundown on the rules for tonight. Notably, the two campaigns agreed that audience members would not be allowed to ask follow-up questions. However, moderator Tom Brokaw was reportedly not a party to that deal, and he will be permitted to ask such questions. Also, the two candidates will be allowed to stand from the directors' chairs that will be provided for them, but they'll be inside figurative fences, not allowed to go outside their designated areas or walk up to their opponent's chair.

You've heard of rapid response and rebuttal, right?

Well, 90 minutes before tonight's debate was slated to begin the Obama campaign sent out a "pre-buttal" of 16 points that John McCain might make tonight.

Damn: That's what I call (p)rapid (p)response.

I won't provide the text and details (all with accompanying sources or links) of the prebuttals, but here are the 16 arguments or charges the Obama campaign has either anticipated McCain might make, or made in the previous debate:

1. OBAMA VOTED TO RAISE TAXES 94 TIMES
2. OBAMA WILL RAISE TAXES ON SMALL BUSINESSES
3. OBAMA VOTED FOR THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY
4. OBAMA SAID SUBPRIME LOANS WERE “A GOOD IDEA”
5. OBAMA IS “PALLING AROUND” WITH TERRORISTS
6. OBAMA SAID OUR TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN ARE JUST BOMBING VILLAGES AND KILLING CIVILIANS
7. OBAMA OPPOSES CLEAN COAL
8. OBAMA VOTED TO RAISE TAXES ON THOSE MAKING $42,000 A YEAR
9. OBAMA’S TAX PLAN WILL RAISE TAXES
10. OBAMA HAS NOT LED ON FINANCIAL CRISIS
11. MCCAIN A LEADER IN EFFORT TO REFORM FANNIE AND FREDDIE
12. OBAMA’S PLAN WOULD ADD ALMOST A TRILLION IN NEW SPENDING AND INCREASE DEFICITS
13. OBAMA WANTS A GOVERNMENT-RUN, SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
14. MCCAIN HEALTH CARE PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE TAX INCREASE
15. MCCAIN’S HEALTH CARE PLAN WILL REDUCE COSTS
16. OBAMA VOTED TO CUT OFF FUNDING FOR THE TROOPS

With four weeks to go, Obama's campaign is hitting on all cylinders right now.

Update: Some readers asked for a link to the rebuttals and links. It came as an email, so there is no link.

Update to update: Ok, chill out. I emailed the Obama campaign and, talk about fast, they replied in four minutes with a link to their website that includes all the rebuttal answers and links. Here you go.