"As an undecided Independent voter..."

Where did you find a rock big enough to live under?

"Evidently, Barack Obama can repeatedly talk about community organizing (just what is that, anyway?)..."

Start here. Wikipedia should be about your speed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizing#1960_to_present

"While many criticize McCain for overusing this story, it is sad that young liberal students like these have become so partisan that they now reject any mention of his ordeal in any and all contexts whatsoever."

Almost as sad as rejecting the notion of "community organizing" before knowing what it means.

"You just might learn something. And, hey, you can’t do that at a basketball game."

I now know how to break a 2-3 zone.

PS: Next time you're trying to make a point about the virtues of not being partisan, try doing something other than just bashing Obama supporters.

It would be difficult to bash McCain supporters for their behavior during the debate since there were none there! If you read the article again you will see I did mention problems with McCain's support of Bush though.

Community organizing is not well defined, as you know, even on that article you linked. The important thing to remember is that people can laugh at a prisoner of war who spent six years in Hannoi and not laugh when someone mentions 'community organizing.' This is almost the definition of unfair partisanship. I think that is troubling, especially since McCain's mention of being a POW was relevant to the debate.

As far as the personal attacks, I guess all I can say is that it is easier to be nasty anonymously over the internet than in real life.

If we're going to talk about being fair and balanced and discuss inaccuracies made by the candidates during the debate, it would be nice if you addressed equally the misstatements made by McCain and Obama.

Washington Post did a widely-regarded fact check of the debate:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/

They identified 14 errors.
One was made by Obama.
Two others made by Obama were subjective, rather than objective statements.
One was made by both.

TEN were made by John McCain.

Before you ask people to fact check, it would behoove you to do the same yourself.

I went for a nonpartisan debate analysis from FactCheck.org, rather than the Washington Post (which is partisan). Factcheck found similar numbers of mistakes by both sides (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html).

Again, though, the point is not that either candidate was completely honest. The point is that it seemed, to the crowd in VCE, that Obama could do no wrong. And so this article is addressing them. I'm not really addressing people who think McCain is disingenuous, since that is already 95% of the campus.

Why is it again that the Obama supporters in attendance at the event should be held accountable for the lack of McCain supporters and independents?

I understand encouraging people to question their leaders, but it seems ridiculous that you would seek to discourage enthusiasm in the political process.

Enthusiasm is great as long as it is fair, and some of the cheers/jeers during the debate weren't exactly fair. Enthusiasm that isn't fair is not helpful for politics and diminishes the whole process. It is just cheap attacks, something both sides do too much.

I agree. Who will be the next president is a matter for very serious thought, and a presidential debate should not be used lightly as an occasion for indulging in the world's most popular recreational drug: adrenalin. We get too much of that from what used to be our sources of information: publications, radio, and TV - now sources of "infotainment". Our next president (or, perhaps vice president) may have to give final approval for plans to invade (or not) Grenada, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, Haiti, Panama, Philippines, or some place we have never heard of, with maybe great loss of life.

All this fuss about Pakistan has a funny twist.

Mr John " You don't say that loud " McCain, if you knew your foreign policy files better, you'd know that the US have started bombing taliban targets in Pakistan.
Just check the news: a new US missile, launched by a drone, striked a taliban target in Pakistan today, september 30.
George Bush made a statement about it on September 9, announcing such strikes within regions near the pakistanese border.
There's also been quite a few fights at the border since then between US special forces and pakistanese soldiers siding with the talibans.
That is currently the number one issue in US-Pakistan relations.
Tday's missile strike isn't the first, and it's only the beginning, since the allied forces in Afghanistan have announced a shift in their strategy, considering Pakistan territory a legitimate battleground to knock off Taliban leaders.
Check the news again.
Who was up to date? McCain or Obama?

All bluff and no subtance for McCain.
For what purpose? Of course he knew (well, let's hope so!)
That's called moral dishonesty..
Can we trust a guy who's ready to make such lies with a broad "vote for me" smile?

This article is absurd. You're penalizing students for engaging in the political process and having an opinion about it? Who cares if they were cheering for Obama? This campaign has been going on for a year and a half now, surely the vast majority of people, especially at a place like Georgetown, have already chosen their side. The College Democrats, as always, did a much better job turning out their membership than the College Republicans, which resulted in a very biased crowd. You're going to penalize them for doing a better job at turnout than their opponents?

Also, people weren't booing the fact that McCain was tortured as a prisoner of war. Everyone recognizes that as an accomplishment. They were booing the fact that his stock answer to every question is to bring up his service in Vietnam. During his Senate campaigns he frequently said it should never be made a campaign issue and never exploited for his own electoral gain. That hasn't stopped him from brining it up at every campaign stop and in every speech. EVERYONE ON EARTH KNOWS ABOUT WHAT HE DID IN VIETNAM, we want substantive answers to serious questions, not the same canned answer.

Hoya: The article specifically points out that McCain mentioned his POW experience in a relevant context. And it's not about "penalizing" anybody--it's about realizing that politics is more than partisanship, and that both sides merit serious consideration, or at least a little respect!

Not sure I appreciate the condescending tone ("You just might learn something."), but I definitely agree with the sentiment. The debates are pointless if no one's listening. By the way, you probably didn't hear the McCain supporters, because they were being polite.

Again, McCain mentioned the POW thing in a relevant context.

Or did you also boo when Kerry said this during the 2004 debate:

I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.

If not, I think you need to admit that maybe there's some unhealthy partisanship at work here.

First: I agree with you that, when watching a debate, it is very important to evaluate the positive and the negative aspects of the positions (not just the performance) of both candidates. I guarantee, however, that this particular debate-watching event at Georgetown is likely a good example of what occurred at both Democrat AND Republican debate-watching events around the country. Why? Because most people who identify with a party have already chosen their candidate, and generally believe in what he represents. Therefore, they cheer when the candidate says something that resonates with them. Big deal.

Yes, some people are treating this as a popularity contest without seriously evaluating the facts behind the hype (what's new about that, anyway?). But not everyone. Just because I, for example, may applaud what my candidate says in a debate doesn't mean that I don't have a legitmate reason for it or that it is unwarranted, nor does it mean that I haven't considered the views of the other candidate. The Georgetown student body tends to lean to the left; therefore, it doesn't surprise me at all that the majority of the people at this event were Obama supporters. This simply reflects the student population. Four years ago at Georgetown, it was the same with Kerry. This is nothing new.

Second: Yes, McCain is a patriot of extraordinary valor, and his sacrifices demand the ultimate respect. No, that is not something to be scoffed at, regardless of if he is or is not using it for political purposes. However, just because you disagree with the students' reaction to his POW story in the debate, doesn't mean you should belittle Obama's history as a community organizer by mirroring Sarah Palin's disdain at the RNC. The fact is that ALL political parties and many, many worthy social causes depend greatly on the work of community organizers. It was a serious mistake for Sarah Palin to mock that, and it is astounding that the GOP has decided to make a spectacle of belittling community service. No, Obama is not a veteran and has not served his country in uniform. He chose to serve his country by being a community organizer and contributing to a cause he believed in to help his fellow citizens.

Who are you or anyone else to patronize someone who has chosen to serve his or her nation? Who are you to define what does or does not qualify as a worthwhile and valid contribution to one's country?

I encourage you to involve yourself in community service if you haven't already, so that you will develop a stronger appreciation for what that means and what it says about the character of a person who dedicates himself to the service of others, whatever the means - military or civilian. You still have two more years at Georgetown - make the most of them by learning what it is to be a man for others.

I've got no problem with community service. The problem is a crowd cheering on vaguely defined "community service" and jeering at very well defined "military service." I don't pass judgment of the worth of either activity. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of the crowd, especially considering their reaction to Kerry's mentions of military service in his speeches and debates.

Dude, Heroes does not come on on Fridays, get your facts straight.

Also the problem with watching debates to inform is that for anyone who has followed politics even a little this season will agree that neither candidates offered any new insight into their positions. It was pretty much what they had been saying all along. As politically active hoyas I'm sure most of the viewers weren't surprised when Obama said he would engage with the all foreign leaders and maybe even sit down to talk to some that Mccain wouldn't. We all know this. So if people wanna should and cheer when Mccain makes a quip about Bear DNA or when Obama mentions that he has a bracelet too then let them.

Also this is the friday NBC schedule:
8:00 PM America's Toughest Jobs 107 All New
9:00 PM Deal Or No Deal 405 All New
10:00 PM Life EVERYTHING...ALL THE TIME All New
11:34 PM The Tonight Show With Jay Leno 3633
12:37 AM Late Night with Conan O'Brien 2651
1:36 AM Last Call with Carson Daly 899

So why go then? If you already know what they're going to say, why go? Just to jeer at the other side and act like your candidate is perfect?

I think if people questioned their candidates more, we'd see fewer and fewer attack ads and BS from the candidates. There'd be less lying and more genuine political discussion in this country. Instead of just applauding our favorite candidate's attacks, we'd stop and ask if it's fair or not first. I guess people don't want that kind of political climate, which is kind of surprising.

Gregg,

Your tone is offensive and condescending. I wonder if you even stopped to consider or talk to anyone at this event, or if you just walked in with a preconception of what you were going to write, reality be damned. Either way, you exhibit a shoddy sense of journalism and shame on the Hoya for giving voice to your ignorant and intellectually dishonest blather. The reason I feel so comfortable making such an assertion is because if you had actually bothered to talk to anyone there, you would have realized that Georgetown students are a heck of a lot smarter than you seem to think they are. Most of them have been following this election for months, if not over a year. It's easy to see the differences between Senator McCain and Senator Obama already, and if you can't see the difference, you probably haven't been paying attention.

I hope you realize you are not the only person at Georgetown who knows anything about politics. Did you ever stop to think for just a second that maybe the people in the room might actually be a little more informed than you? That maybe they have been engaged in the process for months and don't need to sit aimlessly on their hands six weeks out, making a decision based only 100 minutes of soundbites? The problem isn't that students failed to use the debate to consider the candidates-- the problem is that for too many Americans, the debate-- a mere six weeks out from the election-- is the first time they are even bothering to tune in.

As for your complaint that the debate room seemed unbalanced between supporters of Senator Obama and Senator McCain-- well, this was never billed as a nonpartisan event. It was a BIpartisan event-- sponsored by both the College Republicans and the College Democrats. Unsurprisingly, the College Republicans demonstrated little commitment to the event and apparently had better places to be (despite the fact that it was their event initially). Don't blame the students who are already engaged and know that Senator Obama is the voice America needs to reverse the dangerous course of the last 8 years. Senator Obama stands with students on issues important to them: on Iraq, he got it right from the start; he understands the crushing burden student loan are putting on young people, keeping them from considering low-paying careers in the community and in non-profits, and has a plan to help students relieve that burden; most importantly, he will reverse the ugly tone of win-at-all costs that has sadly infected the White House under President Bush.

Just because you haven't been engaged yet doesn't mean you should patronize those who have been. Not everyone who is passionate is mindlessly partisan. Please keep that in mind.

A)You can know a lot about politics, be very smart, have made up your mind on a candidate, and still be unfair. There's a number of political commentators on Fox and MSNBC who demonstrate this every night. This is not a commentary on anyone's intelligence or lack of interest in the process itself, and I'm not sure where I said it was.

B)I never said there were not differences between the candidates. That has nothing to do with the editorial, either.

I did find this comment interesting though:

"That maybe they have been engaged in the process for months and don't need to sit aimlessly on their hands six weeks out, making a decision based only 100 minutes of soundbites?"

OK, great -- so they've thought about the issues, decided on a candidate, and gotten their Obama t-shirts. This is the way politics is supposed to work. Here's where the problem comes in:

For some reason, they attend a "debate" whose only purpose is to reinforce what they already think and feel. They mock the other side (McCain) for blatantly unfair reasons (mentioned in the article, most notably the POW). They've resorted to name calling and childish booing and hissing.

But it doesn't stop there. Using this same logic, they probably go home and crank up Kieth Olberman, who makes a living out of doing nothing but bashing other republicans. Republicans might go home and turn on O'Reilly, who makes his living just bashing democrats.

They just reinforce their beliefs and, instead of ever challenging them, decide to just viciously and unfairly attack the other side. And that harms the process and the country.

R-

"Unsurprisingly, the College Republicans demonstrated little commitment to the event and apparently had better places to be (despite the fact that it was their event initially)."

Right, because we know that the campus is split 50/50 for Obama and McCain and everyone who was watching the debate was watching it in that room. Are you out of your mind?

"Don't blame the students who are already engaged and know that Senator Obama is the voice America needs to reverse the dangerous course of the last 8 years. Senator Obama stands with students on issues important to them: on Iraq, he got it right from the start;"

Because he had the influence to do anything about it as an Illinois state senator in 2002.

"he understands the crushing burden student loan are putting on young people,
keeping them from considering low-paying careers in the community and in non-profits, and has a plan to help students relieve that burden"

Because a $5,000 a year tax credit knocks a lot off of the cost of tuition at Georgetown, any private school, or an out-of-state tuition at a public school. Don't be foolish.

"most importantly, he will reverse the ugly tone of win-at-all costs that has sadly infected the White House under President Bush."

Do you know how Barack Obama won his seat in the Illinois legislature? By using a dirty political trick to run unopposed in the 1995 primary in a heavily Democratic district, all but assuring him a seat. At least Bush had to beat McCain, Gore, and Kerry to win the presidency, unlike Obama whose first real political test came in this year's Democratic presidential primary (don't tell me that sealed Ryan divorce records needed to be opened or that running against Keyes in 2004 was a challenge at all).

Obama didn't get the ryan divorce records unsealed. He was under a lot of pressure to do anyway, and seriously if you wanna run to be a US senator you shouldn't be asking 7 of 9 to get freaky with you in public places. In this case resistance is futile.

In closing Obama might become president because of a certain hot star trek voyager actress. I love the internet!

Maybe I'm one of the "less knowledgeable" among us...but what the f does "you shouldn't be asking 7 of 9 to get freaky with you in public places" refer to?

The key fact in the article is that when McCain mentioned his POW status -- ONCE in a very substantive, 1.5 hour debate -- he was hissed and boo'd. Even if it were true that McCain somehow hid behind his heroism, that would at most be a good reason not to vote for him. It is no excuse to boo and hiss. That is a self-absorbed and deplorable reaction. It is amazing that posters on this thread find it controversial to point this out.

Joe,

Jeri Ryan played 7 of 9, a former Borg, on Star Trek Voyager. Her husband, who was Barack Obama's original opponent for Senate, and she had a messy divorce. In the proceedings, she claimed he took her to several sex clubs and tried to get her to have sex with him in public.

Yes...fellow trekies!