The 1st Debate – LiveBlog & Pre-Debate Links


by Shariq
26th September, 2008 at 6:54 pm    

Firstly, watch Triumph the Comic Insult Dog’s classic foray into ‘spin alley’ in 2004.

If you have more time, then this bloggingheads on a liberal v libertarian foreign policy is a must-watch. Both Heather Hurlburt and Chris Preble are very smart people with interesting and nuanced opinions on foreign policy. Seriously, its a great discussion and you won’t regret it.

The debate starts at 2 am but if anyone is interested i may try and setup a liveblog from either midnight or 1 if anyone is interested. No point doing this if no one is around but if you do want to drop by for a chat (hopefully at least 3 people) then let me know in the comments.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Election News,United States






11 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Leon — on 26th September, 2008 at 9:30 pm  

    I’ll be up and watching.

  2. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2008 at 1:01 am  

    Is McCain going to defend himself on the basis that he’s been too busy saving his chums on Wall street to prep for this debate? Or, perhaps, that he has still suspended his campaign?

    That it is a callumny to expect the putative next POTUS to actually debate his opponent?

    Well, bring it on down.

    The Hobgoblin is wearing off, and the anger is building.

  3. Boyo — on 27th September, 2008 at 7:06 am  

    Apparently McCain won on points.

  4. Kismet Hardy — on 27th September, 2008 at 9:31 pm  

    I don’t know much about politics but this has gone too far.

    If proof were needed that America doesn’t know the difference between reality and celluloid, first you get the dude from 24 claiming the reason Americans will vote for Obama is all thanks to him

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×4104336

    And now they expect people to vote for this dude?!

    http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=234321711

    He shoots terrorists though, so I reckon he’ll win

  5. Ravi Naik — on 28th September, 2008 at 9:10 am  

    Apparently McCain won on points.

    He didn’t. The only 3 polls (CBS/CNN and FOX!) that measured how independents and undecided reacted with the debate, gave Obama the win. Even a tie cannot be considered a win for McCain considering the status quo favours Obama.

    This is a good read.

  6. Arif — on 28th September, 2008 at 11:41 am  

    Much of the Pakistani community is now obviously rooting for McCain. And I assume Russians and Iranians for Obama, for the same reasons.

    Neither seems to have firm principles for foreign policy, more a system of favourites/judgments of character. So its politics as usual – no reason to trust that either will put limits on their use and abuse of power.

    For that reason (my disillusionment), it was useful to see the debate.

  7. Ravi Naik — on 29th September, 2008 at 1:19 am  

    Neither seems to have firm principles for foreign policy

    They might not have principles that you and I agree, but that doesn’t mean that they are not firm. In particular, when one of the candidates sings about bombing Iran, jokes about killing Iranians by increasing exports of cigars, says that Iranians (Shias) are training Al Qaeda (Sunnis)… it is not politics as usual, it will be much worse if Mccain wins this.

    you got to know how reckless

  8. sonia — on 29th September, 2008 at 11:10 am  

    i agree with arif and kismet,

    people have forgotten the difference between media and reality, media is now reality!

  9. shariq — on 29th September, 2008 at 11:47 am  

    Hey Arif, I’d be interested to know which Pakistani community you’re referring to. People in Pakistan, British Pakistanis or American Pakistanis.

    Look I have to admit that I a have strong bias towards Obama but its unfair to say that he doesn’t have strong foreign policy principles. I think he falls very much in the liberal internationalist school of foreign policy. Not afraid to use American power (military or economic), but only within a wider context of engagement with the rest of the world.

    Admittedly this sounds pretty close to Tony Blair, but I think Obama is much more of a pragmatist then Blair was. Reading his memoirs, I think that growing up in Indonesia and being exposed and having common ground with people from different countries has influenced him.

    Ultimately, I trust Obama. I appreciate he didn’t make a stinging critique of America as an imperial power in the 1st debate but the Economy is a winning argument and given that he’s winning in the polls, his main job was to convince people he would make a good commander – in – chief.

  10. Ravi Naik — on 29th September, 2008 at 5:19 pm  

    Ultimately, I trust Obama. I appreciate he didn’t make a stinging critique of America as an imperial power in the 1st debate but the Economy is a winning argument and given that he’s winning in the polls, his main job was to convince people he would make a good commander – in – chief.

    Well said, Shariq. My feeling is exactly the same.

  11. Arif — on 3rd October, 2008 at 7:05 pm  

    Hi Shariq – Pakistanis in the UK, and not all of them, but the general feeling from those around me.

    But, from what I remember, Pakistanis in the US do have a long history of voting more for Republicans, and Democrats do have a history of being more averse to military aid to Pakistan. So there is a bit more to this than one debate alone.

    But that one debate, for me, was an eye-opener, because if Obama were really more inclined to diplomacy than force as a reflex in international affairs, then his attitude to Pakistan would have been more dovish (in a relative way – as far as electoral calculations allow), in common with his attitude to Iran and Russia.

    Conversely, I think if McCain really was more inclined to force than diplomacy in international affairs, then his attitude to Pakistan would have been more hawkish, in common with his attitude to Iran and Russia.

    The reality seems to be that they are either playing to different galleries, or have different prejudices about who is and is not amenable to diplomacy, rather than having any particular general aversion to gunboat diplomacy or appeasement.

    At the very least it is clear that both are comfortable with the role of being a global policeman, only arguing over the pragmatics of effective policing. How do we choose between them? If it is by thinking about how likely each candidate is to be sensitive to your own interests as you perceive them, then someone with peace in Pakistan high on their agenda would probably side with McCain.

    Do you really think Obama’s attitude to Pakistani interests is more sensitive than McCain’s based on this debate?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.