This Thursday and Friday I will be participating in the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit in New York City. Jared Cohen, who is a member of the Secretary of State's Policy Planning staff and organized the event, took some time to sit down with me and answer a few questions about this special summit.

Explain what the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit is all about?  

The Alliance of Youth Movements Summit is about scaling civic innovation.  All around the world, young people are using online, mobile, and digital platforms as tools for empowerment against violence and oppression.  These young leaders are the first pioneers of a new wave of civil society where young people no longer require office spaces, rent checks, paid staff, or paperwork to be able to form a robust organization or movement.  Bringing these organizations together in one place for the first time is a key achievement of the summit.  But it is even more than this.  The 17 delegate organizations coming have also worked collaboratively to produce a field manual on how to use new media to build grassroots movements.  This Field Manual will be available in multiple languages, both in hard copy and in an exciting and interactive online form, which includes a series of how-to videos.  This Field Manual will stand in stark contrast to the how-to guides that groups like Al-Qaeda and others have produced and given to young people.  Using this field manual, these young leaders will unite under a brand new Alliance of Youth Movements organization to push best practices out to civil society organizations around the world and inspire new movements.  Information on the Alliance of Youth Movements is available at youthmovements.howcast.com

In January, James Glassman, Under Secretary of State for Public Affairs told Fox News: "Al-Qaeda was eating our lunch on the Internet." Have youth groups been able to turn the tide? 

Because of civil society 2.0 organizations-- youth movements that are leveraging online, mobile, and digital tools/platforms -- young people are turning the tide on this.  Al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups are using the Internet the old-fashioned way while these groups are using it the new, Web 2.0 way.  This is the comparative advantage that we have over the terrorists.  If we invite the kind of conversation, this kind of back and forth, that social networking provides, we have an edge over those who simply dictate monolithic and violent ideas. The vast majority of young people are fed up with the violence we have seen in Mumbai, Islamabad, Mexico, and elsewhere.  They are standing up to oppose what is happening in the world--much as young people stood up in the 1960s for change.  But now they have the tools. 
 

You said: "Social networking is bringing civil rights to the Middle East." What did you mean by that?

Online social networks are one of the most important tools for facilitating freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.  All across places like the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America, we are seeing young people use online social networks to create, found, and build civil society organizations.  In some cases, governments welcome this; in others they don't.  But, social networks, blogs and mobile technology reduce the ability of repressive regimes to crack down. As there are no offices to raid, often the people organizing the movement use an alias, and undertake their activities from an Internet café where IP addresses can't be traced back to their homes. Its members can choose how anonymous or non-anonymous they want to be as they participate.  This is not foolproof--many young people have paid the consequences through arrest, intimidation and torture, but organizing and building a movement online is always safer than it is offline.     
 

Do you worry that there could be an end to all of this? Perhaps governments shutting down servers or restricting online freedom?

This is an unstoppable trend. Some repressive governments have arrested bloggers, online networkers, and young activists.  They have censored and blocked sites and deliberately made Internet slower in some cases.  While this has led to some serious crackdowns on individuals and their rights, tech savvy youth have proven their resilience and have responded by learning about proxies and getting around censorship.  Frankly speaking, they are far more savvy at responding to these crackdowns than we would be here in America.  If Facebook got shut down, I would have no clue what to do.  I would give up, because for me Facebook is a luxury that facilitates basic civil liberties that I already have.  But for kids in repressive societies, losing Facebook means losing an important tool for freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.  They will spend hours and hours Googling until they find a way to get around censorship.  This happened in Iran when they shut down Orkut.  Unless a country is like North Korea and totally restricts Internet, the Internet is an unstoppable force.  It is just a matter of time before young people learn how to effectively overcome whatever barriers their government puts in their way. 
 

What should older Americans know about the power of social networking?

Americans have seen the power of online social networking in our 2008 presidential campaign.  Both campaigns used online social networks to organize, put out their messages, raise funds, etc.  What a lot of Americans of my parents' generation say is: "I still don't understand why young people like putting all of this information about themselves online." But having seen the success of these movements in getting young people involved, I don't question the utility.  While this realization is a game-changer and Americans now see the value of social networks as a tool for empowerment, most people believe this is an American anomaly.  The reality is social networks as a tool for youth empowerment is a youth phenomenon that is taking place all across the world.  Americans need to see the connection between what we are witnessing in America and what is happening around the world. 
 

You have done a lot of studying regarding the youth in hot spots of the world. How much access do they have to technology? 

Before I was in government, I wrote a book called Children of Jihad in which I looked at this exact issue in the Middle East. One of the most common misperceptions is that access to technology is the privilege of the elite.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  I have seen nomads with satellite dishes in the desert with wires going to generators, satellite dishes that are larger than homes in some of the most impoverished parts of the world, and street children sharing SIM cards on a mobile phone so that they can split it among five of them.  Internet cafes are popping up all across the developing world and kids will often save up and walk several kilometers to use them.  It is true that Internet is not yet as widespread as mobile phones and satellite dishes, but it is growing the fastest. In places like Africa, kids are actually using the Internet for the first time over a mobile phone, before doing so over a computer.  Skepticism about information technology is always a dangerous thing because ultimately the private sector puts it on the public domain. If we don't engage and leverage these tools now, we will allow violent extremists to have a head start on us. 
 

What do you say to sceptics who say this is all well intentioned but how in any way does it fight terrorism?  

I would remind skeptics that the largest protest against a terrorist organization in the history of the world took place on February 4, 2008, when Oscar Morales, an unemployed engineer from Colombia, used Facebook and other new media to put 12 million people into the streets in 190 cities around the world after only one month of preparation.  I would also remind skeptics that there is no shortage of NGOs around the world who are doing their part to push back on violent extremism, but their major handicap is that their voice is not loud enough.  New media allows for those credible anti-violence voices to amplify their message. 

Why should young Americans use social networking for more than just uploading photos and poking people? 

60 percent of the developing world is under 30 and while those online are an influential minority, the exponential growth of the Internet will soon make them a powerful majority.  Violent extremists committed to shaping youth activities online have already established a presence in the digital space.  They transform chat rooms into recruitment centers, post videos preaching martyrdom, spam images of Muslims being killed around the world, and modify popular online games to reward players for killing Jews and Americans. 

This is all the more reason why young Americans need to reach out to the Middle East's plugged-in youth now. They can saturate cyberspace with alternative forums, activities, groups, and discourse essential to bridging the understanding gap.   For the first time in history, they will have the tools to have a conversation with young people around the world.  We need more dorm room diplomacy, where American youth use online platforms to be diplomats from their college dorm rooms and high school classrooms.   
 

Jared Cohen joined the Secretary of State's Policy Planning Staff in September 2006. He is responsible for counter-terrorism, counter-radicalization, youth and education, public diplomacy, Muslim world outreach, and the Maghreb.

The Alliance of Youth Movements Summit will take place December 3 to 5 at the Columbia Law School in New York City. Facebook, Google, YouTube, MTV, Howcast, Columbia Law School, the U.S. Department of State and Access 360 Media are organizing the summit.

Every place I went covering this election, I was asked the same question. Will young people show up to the polls this time around? I always said, I believe so, the trajectory of the numbers suggests they will and if they don't show up for this election, they never will. Well, my fellow Millennials didn't just show up in 2008, they showed up in a big way.

Overall, young people made up 18% of this year's electorate, according to exit poll data from the National Election Pool, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for a consortium of news organizations. Although that only represents a 1% increase from 2004, that 1% increase accounts for 2.2 million new young voters. But that is not the important part of the youth vote story. The numbers tell me three important things. In swing states, the youth turnout greatly helped Barack Obama beat John McCain. Latino youth went for Obama 76%-19%, showing that Democrats have firmly entrenched themselves with the nation's fastest-growing voting bloc. And Obama's margin of victory in the 18-29 demographic was astronomical (66%-32%), and suggests that the Millennial generation is convinced by the policies and direction of the Democratic Party.

The results also confirm a long-standing hypothesis: in states where both campaigns were extremely active and directly targeted young voters, young people went to the polls at a higher rate than their "decided state" counterparts.

In 2004, 64% of young people in swing states turned out, as opposed to 49% nationally. Where did the youth vote make a difference this time around? In the hotly-contested battleground states: in Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana. In Virginia, young people made up 21% of the electorate, as opposed to the 17% they made up in 2004. Young voters broke for Obama 60%-39%. In a state where he won by only 198,769 votes, the youth vote played a pivotal role.

In Pennsylvania, young people made up 18% of the electorate, where they were 13% in 2004. That is an increase of 236,000 new youth voters. Young people in Pennsylvania broke for Obama 65%-35%, which contributed to the Senator's win early in the evening.

In North Carolina, young voters went to Obama 74%-26%, that's a 48% difference! Obama won the state by 14,095 votes. It's safe to say young voters delivered the Tar Heel State.

In Ohio, 61% of the youth vote went to Obama and 36% to McCain. Obama won the state by 200,000 votes. Had he not over performed in the youngest demographic, he would have been in for a squeaker.

Lastly, let's take a look at the state where I was stationed on Election Night, the Hoosier State: Indiana. Before two nights ago, Indiana had not voted for a Democrat for president since 1964. In 2000, the state was among the first called for President Bush and in 2004 Bush beat John Kerry there by 21 points. Indiana was for many years a reliable bastion of conservatism. So how did it turn blue? Quick answer: the youth vote. Young people favored Obama in Indiana 63%-35%. Obama won by a measly 25,836 votes. So throw Indiana in with North Carolina as a former red state that went blue on account of the youth vote.

Simply by being the fastest-growing segment of the American population, Latinos also have become the fastest-growing voting bloc. In the 2008 election they made up 9% of the electorate and that number will surely continue to grow in the coming years. Nationally, according to the Pew Research Center, Latino voters now favor Democrats 65%-26% over the GOP, a 39% gap. That is shocking because in 2006, according to Pew, the gap was only 21 points. As a group, Latino youth voted for Obama 76%-19%, a whopping 57% difference. Why is that important? Well, research has shown that people who vote for a particular party when they are young continue to vote for that same party as they grow older. These numbers mean that Democrats could conceivably have a lock on the Latino vote in the future. This will permanently redraw the electoral map, meaning that it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to hold onto states like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida, which have large and growing Latino populations.

My radio partner James Carville said in an article in the Financial Times: "Elections come and go and usually they are without deep or abiding consequence for either party. That is politics. But occasionally there is the election, like this one, that makes a resounding, lasting impact on the US political landscape. The Republican Party, now at an all-time low in popularity, has lost a generation of voters. In 2008, a new Democratic majority has emerged with young voters at the helm. It is a majority that will continue for 40 more years."

Now, I'll be the first to call out Carville when he makes absurd statements (See 60/20 Sports on XM/Sirius: the 'Brett Favre is under more pressure to perform than Aaron Rodgers" episode), yet I think in this case he makes a valid point. Young voters broke for Democrats pretty handily. They delivered two traditionally red states in North Carolina and Indiana and helped secure comfortable victories in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico and Nevada. If the Millennial generation continues to vote as they did this time, the electoral map as we know it has changed for good. This also reflects what I have seen on the ground. Young people on both sides of the political aisle told me that they have hated the partisan politics of the past 8 years. They want compromise and they want a better life, not only for themselves but also for the country as a whole. They reject the culture wars of the 60's and believe in an America where it's not that weird to see blacks, Latinos, women, gays and lesbians in prominent leadership positions. That said, it is important to remember that while Millennials may lean Democrat in their political philosophy, they might not always show up to vote. If President-elect Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid decide to make the next four years as partisan as the 2002-2006 GOP years, I personally believe young voters will feel disenchanted again and not show up as they did in 2008.

My guess is that the first six months of his presidency will be closely watched. Quite frankly, President-elect Obama must deliver or risk alienating the young voters who ultimately propelled him to office by running up big margins in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and Florida. It  has been an historic night.

Now the challenge has begun: an economy in peril, two wars and a broken health care system. It's a challenging agenda -- one that no one would willingly want to inherit. Yet, President-elect Obama will wake up tomorrow morning with those challenges ahead. I think I speak for all Americans in wishing him good luck.

At Indiana University, I spoke to two young African-American female students immediately after Obama's victory. Both said they never thought this day would come in their lifetime. But they reminded me that this wasn't about race, but about the American people who -- in their eyes and the eyes of the world -- have changed for the better. I spoke to many young Obama workers who had sacrificed hours of their time for their movement and their belief in country seems to have been validated tonight.

At 11 p.m., when President-elect Obama was declared the winner, jubilant shouts echoed across the grounds of Indiana University. Our cameraman Greg said that it was as if the Hoosiers had won another national title in basketball. And that my friends, is LOUD! Different emotions filled the room -- tears, relief, and sadness amongst McCain supporters. I had a die-hard Democrat come up to me and say that John McCain gave the classiest speech he's ever heard. And without a doubt, Sen. McCain paid a great homage to Obama and effectively demonstrated that he understood the enormity of what had just occurred. Many I spoke to said it would be wise for President-elect Obama to reach out to Sen. McCain in the coming months.

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that voters have more confidence in John McCain as a potential commander-in-chief by a slim 50 to 48 margin. Obama has closed the gap since early September, when the poll had him trailing John McCain by 11 points on the same question. But take a look at this interesting internal number, from the latest Harvard Institute of Politics poll, which is known as a credible survey of young voters. Among voters 18 to 24, McCain edges Obama on the commander-in-chief question by 3 points, even as he wins the demographic by 26 points.

These numbers tell us that people see John McCain over Barack Obama in the commander-in-chief role. While Obama leads on the economy, easily as important an issue, swing voters in swing states may think about whom they see as commander-in-chief when they pull the lever.

In my recent travels to swing states, to Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado, I've found a considerable number of folks who are still asking themselves whether or not Barack Obama is "presidential." Presidential in the sense that during a nationally traumatic event (there will be one in the next four years) they trust Barack Obama to lead the United States and deliver that primetime television address. Several factors play into this: experience, record and, perhaps, race.

Elections can be decided by the low-information voter. This voter does not watch MSNBC, would never read this article, and might even make up his or her mind this week. For this voter, image and familiarity are important. This voter will vote intuitively.

Has Obama closed the deal with this undecided voter, and sufficiently sold himself as a "commander-in-chief" figure? The polls show he has tightened the gap, but David Axelrod and David Plouffe have to be troubled by the fact that he is trailing John McCain on the question even among 18-24 year olds. A few Republicans have told me to 'look beyond the polls' when covering this election and to think extemporaneously about it. In this case, looking within the polls, at the commander-in-chief question, validates their point.

Many pundits are calling this race over - heck, even Pat Buchannan wrote an article called "Obama's First 100 Days." But if the pundits are wrong and John McCain ends up pulling this out, I believe it will be because swing voters don't see Barack Obama as someone who has the pedigree to be, well, you guessed it -- commander-in-chief.

Hey Joe.  Can I call ya Joe?  No, I'm not talking to you Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman or some mythological everyman who goes by the name of Joe Six-Pack.  I need to talk for a few minutes, right down to earth, with my good friend Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher.

How the heck are ya?  I keep hearing different things about you - you're poor, you're rich, you want to own your own business but you can't afford it, you were for buying it before you were against it...

So Joe, I heard all of these things about you while I was watching the debate at a VIP reception for Hofstra University supporters at the University Club, a mere 300 yards or so away from the David S. Mack Sports and Exhibition Complex.  Now, Joe, you know I'm not a big-pocketed funder of higher education.  I work in news, and can barely fund my own lunch.  I was there because one of those guys couldn't make it, and the tickets made their way down to me.  See, the trickle-down principle made my American Dream come true!

Joe, if there's one thing I learned at Hofstra, it was how you and I -- or any Tom, Dick or Harry -- could throw one heck of a debate-watching party.

First, get your hands on $3 million.  That's how much Hofstra spent on the event.

Second, serve good food.  Nothing eases the pain of recession like a good old piece of prime rib.  And they had another chef rolling out fresh spicy tuna, eel and salmon sushi.  Joe, I couldn't choose between the beef and the fish.  Both choices were so tempting.  So I considered asking the caterer, Chef Jeff Loshinsky, what would happen if he became unable to serve one of the dishes, would he be happy just serving the other?

"Well," Jeff the Chef might have told me after admitting his preference for the sushi, "Americans have gotten to know the prime rib. They know that it's not fishy and can be found in restaurants all over America."  In the spirit of the event, he'd probably continue on to say that sushi is also a solid choice that definitely excites the base of many parties.

Third, get some real A-List people on the invite list. No joke, Joe, on my way into the University Hall, I ran smack into New York Governor David Paterson.  But before I could apologize, he disappeared, only to show up on one of the monitors right behind me.  Don't forget to bring these folks in the back way - we parked on one side of campus, and were then bussed to the other along a protester-free route.

While I was looking for a place to put down my stuff and revel like a fat cat, New York Senator Chuck Schumer walked on by.  Yeah, I know, he's no Hillary. She must have been at a better party.  And it was odd, Joe, that there were no high-ranking, currently serving Republicans around. I didn't think this was a partisan event.

Speaking of high-ranking elected women, as I was popping a stuffed mushroom into my mouth (note to Chef Jeff - this was the only culinary misstep of the evening), I spied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the other side of the room.  I tried to get her to stand for a picture, but doggone it if she didn't move at just the right second.  I tried and tried until it was clear her advance staff was worried, and paying more attention to me than to the Speaker.  In the end, she nearly knocked me over on her own quest for a bowl of pasta.

 But the best, Joe, was at a large, round table in the front of the room where Senator Alfonse D'Amato  - the man who brought so much pork to New York that he was known as Senator Pothole - was holding court.  It's been ten years since Chuck Schumer beat him in another expensive, ugly election, but as the two talked, it was clear that the old wounds hadn't healed, despite Chuck's efforts to "hug it out." Someday, maybe McCain and Obama will meet like this.

Before I go, Joe, I want to come back to that other Joe, Joe Six-Pack, for a minute, because there's a lot that's been put out there. I don't know if J6P's checked in with his 401k lately, but I think he's going to have to make some hard decisions regarding future spending on his special liquid interests. He might just have to downgrade to Joe Four-Pack, or worse - Joe Dry.

That was pretty much it, Joe.  You've heard about all the rest - the split screens, the smiles, the grimaces.  Nothing I saw back stage - or three football fields away from the stage - changes what's already been said by people way above my pay grade. There were cheers and jeers from both sides of the room as the night wore on, and the only thing I'm sure of is that in all that uproar, the syllable most spoken was 'Joe.'

One more thing, Joe, if you do become a small business owner - got any jobs?

I report to you from Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where I watched the debate with students from Wake Forest University last night. The university sits on a beautiful tree-filled campus with elegant buildings, a physical reminder that this is a true center of higher learning.  I decided to travel to North Carolina because recent polls show the presidential race between Senator McCain and Senator Obama here is very close. No Democrat has won North Carolina since Jimmy Carter did in 1976, and I wanted to gauge the situation on the ground to see if North Carolina is actually up for grabs.

Republicans and Democrats at Wake Forest agree that North Carolina can be considered a swing state this year, and contribute its newfound status to a rise in registration among younger voters and African-Americans, as well as to the large number of transplants that have come from the Midwest and New England to live in the state for its favorable tax incentives. One young Republican I spoke with said she believes a lot of moderate Republicans here, especially in the suburbs around Charlotte and Raleigh, are going to vote for Obama. She attributed this to something she called "Bush guilt": moderate Republicans are disappointed with their '04 votes and want to vote for a change candidate. If this is the case, Obama has a very good shot of winning the state. Another student I spoke with said that, while Obama will keep it close, the high number of evangelical voters and the state's inherent conservatism will allow McCain to pull out a victory. Keep in mind that some polls in 2004 had Bush and Kerry running neck-and-neck, but Bush ended up winning the state by 12 points.

There are two interesting local races here that reflect the changing mood of the state. Senator Elizabeth Dole is in an absolute dogfight against State Senator Kay Hagan. In July, Dole had a comfortable 11-point lead according to a Rasmussen poll. Now, the Real Clear Politics average of state polls has Hagan up by a point. This race is as tight as can be. If North Carolinians are willing to vote out the well-known and respected Dole, who replaced the local legend Jesse Helms, it demonstrates how much change really is brewing in the state.

Another race to keep an eye on is in the 8th Congressional District, located in the southern part of the state. In 2006, incumbent Robin Hayes won this race against little-known schoolteacher Larry Kissell by only 329 votes. In the past, the rural 8th district has been fairly conservative, but it has been hit hard by the poor economy and has become more middle of the road. Kissell now leads by 8 points in the most recent Survey USA poll.

These two races show a state that is no longer decisively Republican but very much up for grabs. I am interested to see if "values voters" appear in high numbers, as they did in 2004, or if the economy dominates the day as many are predicting. With 27 days till Election Day, we'll see.

As for the debate, an older person sent me the following: "Both disappointed me. I want Churchill or FDR-- these times call for soaring rhetoric and calls to action. Too small for the times." I thought that was an interesting read on what the Drudge Report calls a boring debate. By now you have read every pundit's opinion of what transpired last night, so I won't bore you with too much more of the same. With our nation facing such challenging times, I expected each candidate to try to make a more personal plea, and explain why he would make the best steward of a country that is now in dire straits. It would have been the brilliant political move. But frankly, all we saw was more of the same: two candidates sticking to their crafted positions, unwilling to appear uncertain or overly romantic.

That's all from North Carolina. See you at Hofstra.

*** The Path To Winning: To reach 270, Obama has to hold on to the Kerry map -- winning New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- and pick up just one more state other than Nevada (which would get him to 269 and send the election to the House). Here's McCain's challenge, per our map: If he's unable to turn a blue state red, then he has to win EVERY SINGLE Toss-up to get to 270. It's doable, but it's also the poker equivalent of drawing an inside straight. Also, not only does McCain share Vietnam veteran status with the last two Democratic nominees for president (Gore and Kerry); he also shares the need for a similar Electoral College strategy. At this point in the campaign in both 2000 and 2004, Gore and Kerry seemed to have limited room to maneuver in the states. Gore pulled out of Ohio (about this time) to focus on Florida, and Kerry pulled out of Missouri to focus on Ohio. McCain's pullout of Michigan has the same feel to it -- meaning it's not a bad strategy given the circumstances. The fact is, like Gore and Kerry, McCain's got a narrow path to 270, which explains why Sarah Palin was in Omaha yesterday and why there is more money being thrown into Maine. McCain's campaign is not playing for a big win, just any win. And while both Kerry and Gore did end up losing, it was VERY close. When the environment is against you, it's not a bad strategy.

*** Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania: If there is one blue state the McCain campaign may never give up on, it's the Keystone State. Of all the Kerry blue states, it's the most competitive -- even right now at a time that appears to be Obama's high-water mark. Of the remaining blue states in play, Pennsylvania may be the most culturally sensitive and may explain why the McCain folks want to shift the debate a bit to character (see below). Shifting the campaign to character isn't about changing the national narrative; it's about keeping the undecided column larger in Pennsylvania. Now, the character strategy could backfire in a Florida or even a Nevada or Colorado. But Pennsylvania, by the numbers, is worth it to McCain. Speaking of state-by-state strategies, anyone remember the last time Obama was in Ohio?

Check out more of the day's political reporting on First Read.

And see NBC political director Chuck Todd's take on the electoral map below.

Martin Wolf says in The Financial Times that knowledge is not the problem."We know how to recapitalise and restructure damaged financial systems. The problem is lack of will. Government must start to show it is in control of events. In the twilight of a failed US administration, that may seem far too much to ask. Winston Churchill, Roosevelt's partner, said: "The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative." The alternatives are now exhausted. It is time for politicians to do the right thing."

What Wolf essentially is saying is that Congress needs to go back to the drawing board and pass a bill that will rescue the American economy. This is no small task. Yet after reading countless articles for and against the bailout, it seem clear that the government has to do something.

So how does all of this affect young people?

If you are a recent graduate, fresh out of college, it is going to be even more difficult to find a job. An unemployed friend of mine who graduated from a top university near the top of his class told me, "I've had two employers tell me that last year I would have been fine, but this is the worst job market in years." I asked Richard Tresch, an esteemed economics professor at BC, what awaits kids in the job market. He told me, "With consolidation and bankruptcy in the financial industry, there will almost certainly be fewer jobs available there. Also, what jobs remain will probably not come with the fairly large bonuses that young workers were receiving."

The bad economy is not only affecting young people trying to get into the business world. It has and will hit hiring for all types of jobs. Small businesses will suffer because they can't secure credit and so cannot grow. Non-profits and social programs will not have as much funding because there will be less capital available to them and their budgets will be down. If you have a job lined up for after graduation, be thankful. These are dire times for young graduates.

How will the bad economy affect student loans?

About six months ago, many private lenders stopped their government-backed student loan programs because of the credit crunch brought on by the housing crisis. Many also stopped loaning money to students privately, without the government's backing. With the current economic collapse, many students will only be able to turn to the government for student loans.

I asked Georgetown finance professor Sandeep Dahiya what would happen to student loans if the economy gets so bad that the government is unable to assist. He told me, "That is a good question. The government is high profile enough that at this point that probably would not happen." But he went on to say, "I do not see private lenders coming back into the student loan market." This is fairly significant because it cuts down on the number of options students have in acquiring a loan. It's not just a slogan, it's common sense that "when banks compete, you win." Student loans vary from college to college. Schools have different agreements with different lenders. That being said, if you need to take out a student loan in the next few weeks, definitely read all of the fine print to see what is the best government-backed deal you can find.

These are not easy times for anybody but young people have it especially hard. If you are graduating from college this May, start to look for a job now. Call your local congressman or senator and see what they are doing about student loans. Look at your loan to make sure it is still viable for next semester.

While the current situation certainly is brutal, I'd like to end on a somewhat optimistic note. I put in a call to Mr. Chris Quick, formerly of the brokerage firm Quick & Reilly, who now works for Bank of America. I asked him what advice he would have for young people in today's market. He responded, "We've been through this before in 1987, when the market fell 22% and values got real cheap. With stock prices so low, this is a chance where you don't need a lot of money to make a good return in the long run. Young people have the opportunity to be really involved in the market because of the Internet. Do your research and invest a few hundred dollars in companies that are going to be around for an extended period of time. In 10 to 15 years, you could make a great return on your investment."

Earlier...

From NBC's Mike Viqueira and Carrie Dann 

The situation on the Hill remains incredibly fluid, with administration officials and GOP leaders pounding the marble floors of the Capitol to shore up support for the bailout legislation. Republican House leaders, despite their own distaste for the bill, are whipping their members in the effort to get the votes needed to pass it as the clock ticks.  And there's there's an added sense of urgency: With the Jewish holidays fast approaching, practicing members from the West Coast need to be back on home turf by sundown. 
 

The best estimates right now indicate that Republicans will garner about 70 votes in support of the bailout, less than half of the 199 GOPers in the House.  Congressional Democrats are more optimistic, predicting that a majority of their 235 members will eventually climb aboard.

From some skeptics, scatological references abound. Minority Leader John Boehner, despite asking members to hold their noses and sit down at the bailout table with him, told colleagues that the bill is a "crap sandwich."   Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) rose on the floor to compare the bill to " a huge cow patty with a marshmallow stuck in the middle of it."
 
But more serious rhetoric remains plentiful as well. For a sense of how Congressional leaders are viewing the history attached to the vote they'll cast within hours, look no further than retiring 12-year House veteran Rep. Chip Pickering of Mississippi, who calls the bailout bill a "legacy" vote on par with members' decisions on the authorization of the Iraq war and on President Bill Clinton's impeachment.  And Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said that passing the bill would lead to a "Leviathan state," concluding soberly that, "Duty is ours. Outcomes belong to God." Stay tuned... the clock continues to tick and the gavel falls in less than two hours.

Check out more of the day's political reporting on First Read.

Last night was not a night for popcorn, or peanuts, and wasn't especially about entertainment. Gone were the "gotcha" questions and invitations for political gamesmanship. Instead, there were three serious, well-prepared men in dark suits and a mostly silent, invisible live audience. Facts and statistics, bills and budgets replaced retorts as ammunition. The message: this is a serious debate about a serious decision for a serious time.

In a campaign where both sides have railed against Washington, the language of the city was the currency of the night. Committees and subcommittees, tax rates and earmarks, amendments and continuing resolutions. Both candidates were impressive in their mastery of the facts (even those that they may have intentionally distorted), but one was left wondering if undecided voters felt either man fully connect to their problems and values and dreams.

Both men were armed against their Nixon moment with blush and foundation, which wasn't particularly flattering in HD. Barack Obama wore a flag pin; John McCain did not. Neither man was relaxed but both were presidential, largely self-assured and in control of their arguments.

Neither candidate got in a narrative-confirming dig about the other man's character. There was no "You're no Jack Kennedy" or "There you go again" moment.

Both candidates have been changed by the long campaign. Obama and McCain argued over earmarks last night, but not over whether they're bad and should be eliminated, just about how bad they are. Obama stopped requesting them in 2008. "Main Street" rolled off McCain's tongue like the populist he has become or is or is trying to appear to be.

The candidates don't like each other very much.  The disdain from each was palpable.  Barack Obama referred to McCain as "John" 25 times, implying familiarity, but his smiles under McCain's accusations were tight. McCain did not call Obama by his first name once, addressed Lehrer for most of the evening, and hardly acknowledged that he had a debate partner.

Each candidate clearly thought he was the smartest guy in the room. Obama tried to win by starting his sentences with conciliatory language, before inserting a correction. He spent much of the night agreeing with McCain- "Senator McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues," "Senator McCain and I, I think agree on the importance of energy," "John is right we have to make cuts"- but his best moments came when he attacked directly.

McCain condescended, implying that all the candidates' disagreements could be cleared up if Obama just had a little more knowledge of the issues. "Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy," he said. "Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn't understand, it's got to be a new strategy," "I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan..."

As expected, the economy dominated the first 40 minutes of debate, and John McCain won here because Obama didn't shift the focus of debate from earmarks and taxes (McCain's turf) to health care, food prices and the cost of the Iraq war (his own.)

Otherwise, the night was a draw, with both candidates articulating their quite different approaches to governing and the issues. McCain's press didn't take a nosedive, as it could have after the confused week if he had not performed well. Obama more than met any questions about whether he could look presidential next to McCain, with foreign policy as the subject.

1. How much will moderator Jim Lehrer let the debate be about the economy?

Originally this debate was supposed to stick to foreign policy. Due to the catastrophic economic events of the past two weeks, there is no way that these two candidates won't address the economy. While Obama gets higher numbers on the issue, he is by no means a scholarly economist. John McCain has admitted in past interviews that the economy is not his strong suit. One can understand why both men wanted the first debate to be about foreign policy when the decision was made months ago. Obviously, with just about every important economist saying the economic outlook is dire, Obama will want to try and hammer home the message that Bush and the GOP are responsible and thus, by association, so is McCain. McCain will try to say he is a maverick, a reformer who routinely splits from his party and who will put "country first." Whoever comes across as a real leader on the economic issue will win the debate.

2. Can Obama get his point across without taking a lifetime?

While Senator Obama is an extremely gifted politician, debates are not his strongest suit. When explaining what he'd do, Obama often speaks in a circular way. He explains the problem, what he'd do to fix it and why he is right. That works great for The Charlie Rose Show, but not in a debate setting, where it is all about the quick-hitting sound bite that the media plays on repeat. Obama cannot let McCain rack up all the good sound bites and appear to win the debate.

3. How well prepared is McCain?

My colleagues disagree with me on this, but I honestly think McCain believed there was a decent chance that the debate would be postponed. Maybe I'm young and naive, but I believe that when McCain "suspended" his campaign, he did not prepare for the debate as much as he would have had he kept up his usual schedule. Obama and preparation are almost one and the same; he rarely leaves anything to chance. McCain definitely needs to be on top of his game in order to come across as the better of the two choices.

4. Who can avoid "the big one" and will it happen?

Let's think NASCAR for a minute. "The big one" is the crash that happens at superspeedways, when 40 cars are whizzing around the track at 200 mph. Drivers bet their place and their lives on avoiding the big wreck. McCain and Obama will do the same tonight. Neither wants to pull an Al Gore and sigh - that comes across as arrogant- or do a Bush 41 and check his watch, appearing uncomfortable and bored. Rationally, these pitfalls seem pretty easy to guard against, but since when is a presidential debate easily predictable?

5. Will either of the two go for a knockout blow?

Usually when there are three debates, candidates hold back until the last debate because they don't want to say anything stupid or appear overbearing. Presidential debates are different because more people watch the first one than the other two. So this presents an interesting dilemma: both candidates have the biggest audience they may ever have tonight. They have the opportunity to showcase their abilities and to demonstrate why the other guy is wrong, but do they take advantage of that opportunity? My guess is no. Both candidates may be so guarded that they don't go to great extremes to show the differences between them. Yet with John McCain's recent rebel streak, when the campaign's kept even the most astute media folks guessing, I wouldn't be surprised if McCain went out punching early. 

Watch the debate on NBC and the special coverage on MSNBC. I'll have a web video live from Georgetown University up later tonight on the Nightly News website. Register to vote before October 6^th, swing staters!

By the way, whoever decided to schedule this debate for 9pm on a Friday night should be fired. On Friday nights most people spend time with their family, go out to a bar or a restaurant, watch a movie or a high school football game, read a book or meet up with friends. Young people especially don't have much time for politics on a Friday night. I don't get this decision and I think it is ultimately harmful to our democracy. A lot of people who would have watched will be tuned out of the debate and tuned into their own lives.

I'd like some comments on what people think of the "Commission on Presidential Debates." Is it right that one group gets to decide the place and format of the debates? Should the decision-making about where and when debates are held be more of a democratic process? Should ordinary citizens be more involved? Let me know your thoughts.  

OXFORD, Miss. -- The atmosphere on the Ole Miss campus is one of enthusiasm -- and a bit of anxiety -- for a debate a state has hoped and planned for for a year and a half, since the school applied to have it.

Republican Gov. Haley Barbour today called for the debate to go on. The state newspaper was filled with editorials and op-eds urging McCain to show up.

The Republican nominee may have thrown a wrench into the plans, but in the debate hall here, workers are drilling the final screws into the debate set; lights are being checked; podiums are being measured; the last of the set's panels are being put up and wires being weaved. Outside, security checkpoints are in place, network TV camera stands are built and set. (And never mind those hotel reservations and flight plans.)

"The debate will go on," University of Mississippi Vice Chancellor Gloria Kellum told NBC's local affiliate, adding, "We've spent two years working on this."

Advance teams from both campaigns have completed walk throughs, the local affiliate reported citing university officials, adding that if McCain doesn't show, there will be a 90-minute town hall with Obama taking questions from the audience.

In this proud town, on this university campus, residents, students and school officials want the debate to go on. And everything's in place.

McCain, tonight, told NBC's Brian Williams on Nightly News he is "hopeful" he will be at the debate.

An entire town and state sure hopes so.

Check out more of the day's political reporting on First Read.

Check out more of the day's political reporting on First Read.