Tuesday's debate had a different format from the previous ones. This was a town hall style format. John McCain was clearly more comfortable with that, but Barack Obama also handled the style well. So the style was different. For the most part, the substance wasn't.

In Nashville, host Tom Brokaw asked the crowd to be reserved and polite. When he added, "Those of you watching across the nation are not so constrained", the crowd at Portland's Bagdad Theater erupted with cheers, whisteles and applause.

The first and dominant theme was, of course, the economy. The first question dealt with bailing out "the citizens" - as opposed to Wall Street Fat Cats. Obama called the current crisis the "final verdict" on the Bush/Republican years. He called for strong oversight of last week's $700-Billiion-plus bailout bill, which both he and McCain voted for. Then he repeated his calls for overhaul of several government programs. McCain acknowledged that Americans were "angry and fearful", calling for more energy independence, low taxes and a curb on government spending. He then called for more spending - by having the government buy up bad mortgages from homeowners, and refinancing them at government expense. It was the one new proposal that came out of the debate, and, as McCain admitted, "It would be expensive."

Underlying all this was the general unsease in the nation and world - and fear that the economic collapse could get a lot worse before it gets better.

Both candidates complained about the "greed and corruption" on Wall Street. People sitting in the crowd directed their questions directly at the candidates. As they answered, the largely-partisan crowd at the Bagdad Theater reacted with hoots, laughter and catcalls - or with cheers and applause, depending on whether Obama or McCain was doing the talking. But they were silent when McCain pointed out that Obama was one of the biggest recipients ever of campaign cash from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Obama countered that, campaign cash nothwithstanding, he never favored those mortgage companies in legislation. Then he pointed out that McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, was himself a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Both good points. However, neither was an answer to the questions about the Bailout, and how to pay for it.

The theater crowd applauded one nonpartisan question. The question reflected the growing national cynicism. It was: How could voters could trust either party, when they both got us into this mess. Obama blamed President Bush, not congressional Democrats. McCain pointed to Obama's votes for Bush's budget. He then touted his history as a bipartisan "maverick", arguing that Obama has consistently voted for increased spending. This, just 15 minutes after unveiling his own multibillion mortgage-refinance plan.

Point by point, argument by argument, the two candidates jabbed, punched and wove through the verbal battle. McCain gave as good as he got; he had wanted more of these "Town Hall" style formats, so he tried to make the best of this one. But his answers and arguments, like Obama's, were largely repeats of the first debate, and of campaign platforms created months ago.

Asked about three big items - energy, health care and costly entitlement programs - McCain said we had "to deal with" all three. Obama put energy first on his priority list. He made health care his third priority. Jumping past entitlements, Obama put education third - even though the question did not include education. He skipped over entitlements entirely. That's a pretty big omission; entitlements, which include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, comprise the biggest spending item in the U.S. Budget.

About halfway through the debate, the topic seemingly switched from the economy to the environment - but both candidates, correctly, pointed out that the topics are intertwined, and both called for government-funded "investment" (a.k.a. spending) into alternative energy.  Both seemed to place their election hopes on delivering more debt-financed government cash to the middle class- or, as that earlier questioner had asked, "bailouts to the people."

The costliest of those programs could be Health Care. Although the question dealt with the actual cost of health care, Obama and McCain argued about different ways to provide health insurance. Obama's is more government-centered, and probably more expensive, since he wants to "insure every American" (a line that drew cheers), and if private companies won't do it, then the government will. McCain's plan is mainly to give big tax credits to people so they can buy their own, private insurance. So he didn't answer the question either, which had asked about controlling the cost of health care itself. It did show two different ways - both of them costly - to deliver health insurance.

One hour into the debate, the candidates started talking about foreign policy - but again, expense and the budget was part of that. Obama called the Iraq war too expensive, repeating his call for a pullout there, and an insertion of more troops into Afghanistan. McCain repeated his own claims to experience and foreign policy knowledge. Though the arguments were more pointed, and the body language more emphatic than in previous encounters, they were basically the same things we've heard before. So had the Bagdad Theater crowd, and the row of bloggers who were describing the event to Internet readers.

And on it went - back and forth. McCain did better than he did in the first debate, but probably did not do enough to turn the tide of public opinion. Certainly not in the Bagdad Theater, where the anti-McCain catcalls continued through the entire episode; and probably not in the living rooms across America, where McCain's performance was likely better received - but not that much better. Obama may have been a hit in the Bagdad Theater, but I'm not sure either man was a big hit to average Americans watching at home - and hearing much of what they've already heard throughout this campaign.