Ryan was referencing a tax plan of yore. The young upstart from Wisconsin was trying to bring undecideds over to his way of thinking — instead he handed the vice-president a rebuke on a plate, a modern reworking of a classic political putdown: Lloyd Bentsen v Dan Quayle on a similar stage just over 14 years ago.

“Son, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

It’s hard to imagine that any power struggle between two staunch Irish-Americans like Biden and Ryan could ever reach the finishing line without a reference to JFK. The former US president was just one of many Irish undertones and overtones that coloured this second US election debate a uniquely American shade of green.

It was that romanticised emerald hue, gaudy like the lucky tie Ryan claims he has worn on several election nights since he first entered office at the tender age of 28.

“This is a bunch of stuff,” Biden blustered when Ryan trumped up President Barack Obama’s failure to meet Israeli prime minister Benjamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu during the recent UN General Assembly.

That was more than enough raiméis for widely praised moderator Martha Raddatz, an ABC reporter whose coverage of overseas conflict would sharpen some of the more substantive exchanges of a lively debate. What did the VP mean by “stuff”?

“It’s Irish,” interjected Ryan, knowing full well that Biden was perilously close to blurting out what he really wanted to say as he searched in vain for a more wholesome word to slap down his young foe.

“It is,” agreed Biden, his teeth dazzling, his eyes smiling. “We Irish call it malarkey.”

The Twitter storm #malarkey was already in full swing. This was the third or fourth time Biden had called foul on Ryan’s world view. ‘Malarkey’ was as big a hit as Big Bird had been the previous week.

As more than one observer put it, this was the “charming attack dog” the Democrats needed to steady the ship. Ol’ Man Biden has his boss in good shape for tomorrow night’s round two in Long Island, the “Town Hall” style debate which could prove the most pivotal moment since the last pivotal moment.

Black & white issue

Forget emerald green candidates and put aside red and blue states for the moment. Black and white is as big an issue as ever.

There was naive hope four years ago that the election of Obama had heralded the beginnings of a post-racial society in the US.

But, as it has been since the 1960s, the majority of white men will vote Republican and the overwhelming majority of African-Americans will stay loyal to the Democrats and the first black president.

I attended a fascinating discussion panel in SoHo last Tuesday, ‘Colour Blind: Does Race Matter in Electoral Politics?’, which was illuminating about the dissenting voices within the African-American community who have been left disillusioned by Obama’s failure, as the speakers see it, to grapple directly with America’s racial fault lines.

As Kai Wright, editorial director at colorlines.com, put it: “You cannot have a conversation about Barack Obama in black society, whether it’s my family or on my website.”

On the panel with him was Gene Demby, political editor at Huffington Post BlackVoices and Fredrick C Harris, director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University and author of The Price of the Ticket: Barack Obama and Rise and Decline of Black Politics.

All three criticised the president’s unwillingness to force home his authority when dipping his toe into the racially-charged epis-odes of the last four years. Obama had already learned his lesson about criticising people who cling to guns and bibles by the time the Tea Party began yearning to take their country back.

What really disappointed Wright and Demby was the president’s dancing around the core issue that led to the 2009 “beer summit” which toned down the Henry Louis Gates controversy, the black academic arrested for breaking into his own home. Then there was department of agriculture official Shirley Sherrod, who lost her job after being wrongly accused of racism by a conservative website in 2010.

When the black teenager Trayvon Martin was shot dead by a vigilante earlier this year, Obama reacted eloquently as a father and not as an African-American.

All this is being played out against the backdrop of a changing political landscape. The demographic that defines the traditional strongholds of the Republican party, the south and the midwest, is fast evolving. The population of white, conservative males is shrinking steadily.

Harris pointed out that this was not a question of Obama appeasing African-Americans but rather of nurturing the Democrats’ most dependable constit-uency — 95% of black voters are Obama supporters — while the Republicans face an uncertain future.

Sadly, this weekend in Ohio, one of the most crucial swing states, a Mitt Romney rally was attended by one noteworthy character who gives good conservatives a bad name. His T-shirt bore the slogan: “Put White Back in the White House”.

For the record, a Romney spokesperson said the shirt was “reprehensible and has no place in this election”.

An old media win

On a cheerier note, newspaper lovers will be encouraged by the enduring influence of old media as the two candidates begin pitching their suitability for endorsement this week.

Ironically, I’m leaning heavily on an excellent piece by Michael Calderone on the Huffington Post over the weekend.

He recalls that four years ago, Obama was the clear victor of this tradition but faces an uphill battle to replicate that achievement.

Admittedly, not even the dreaded undecideds are waiting to see who the Columbus Dispatch opt for or if the Des Moines Register will jump ship from the incumbent. But newspapers still set agendas and all broadcast news will go big on who endorses whom.

Greg Mitchell, who tracked endorsements during the past two elections, told the Huffington Post that while “no one would argue they’re the key factor in the race”, endorsements have helped signal the past two sets of results. In 2008, Mitchell predicted which candidates would win 13 “toss-up” states based solely on newspaper endorsements. He got 12 correct. Four years earlier, Mitchell predicted 14 out of 15.

We’ll soon know if it’s all just a bunch of stuff and malarkey.