Watching Tonight's Presidential Debate Online

farkinga writes "For those of us that no longer have a television, live TV events can be a challenge to watch. Fortunately, tonight's Presidential Debate has attracted the attention of most US broadcasters, many of whom will provide online viewing options. Leading the way is Hulu, a joint venture between NBC Universal and News Corp, who will stream the Fox-branded feed tonight — assuming they worked out the bandwidth issues that came up during the second debate!"

Comments

Overdrive

[COMON$]

What is with Slashdot going into political overdrive? I know the elections are coming up but jeesh, 3 on the main page right now and we still have weeks until the election.

Re:Overdrive

[Anonymous Coward]

And note the distinct lack of Acorn voter fraud stories compared to the flood of blackboxvoter stories we got last election.

Presumably because one is "technology" and the other isn't. But it was always cast as "this is important news because voting fraud is important as a nation."

Except now it's not.

Re:Overdrive

[smitty97]

The Acorn thing isnt that big of a deal, because "Mickey Mouse" is not actually going to show up to vote. Having your vote manipulated in some blackbox voting machine IS a big deal.

Re:Overdrive

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Speaking as a non USian, living outside the US, I have to say that the American presidential election is all over the news feeds here as well.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, newsfeeds and syndication. Whatever the American media decides to talk about, the entire anglosphere usually ends up talking about as well. If there's a bus crash or school shooting in the middle of nowhere in, say, Nebraska, its gets on the Irish, and usually English, national 9 o'clock news. This is a symptom of an increasingly monopolised and centralised media in the western world.

Secondly, the US presidential elections are actually very important. I see Slashdotters posting comments to the effect that both parties are equally bad and it doesn't matter which way you vote and excuses, excuses, excuses. I can tell you from the point of view of someone who is very much affected by the results of your national elections, this is a pretty depressing thing to hear. It's clear to anyone who has half a clue that there are very wide and deep differences between the two main candidates, and it's quite irritating to find out just how flippantly many Americans go about voting, or not voting, for their president.

Your election affects me. It affects people around me. My nation's economy, policies, laws, and culture, yes culture, are significantly affected by your selection of a president, through his administration's policies. When the choices made by religious southern fundamentalists end up slowly eroding my way of life because people who should have known better were too apathetic to vote, I get a little irritated. So in my view the more coverage this election gets, the better.

So in short, I would rather these stories on the Slashdot front page rather than have this site ignore or only pay lip service to the issue. This is "Stuff That Matters" to me.

Re:Overdrive

[Archangel Michael]

"It's like Democrats cabal of wealthy kleptomaniacs."

Fixed that for you.

Two words .... "INCOME REDISTRIBUTION"

There is NO evidence that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise anyone (not that I'm a Republicrat), while there IS plenty of evidence that do-gooder liberals ARE trying to be Kleptomaniacs.

But I really love how you call actually making sure people are eligible to vote is equated with "disenfranchised".

You know what, if people can't bother to pick up an application, fill it out correctly, turn it in, go to the polls and vote, I DON'T FEEL sorry that they feel "disenfranchised", they did it to themselves.

And if people are too stupid to know when or how to vote, then I don't feel sorry for them either, when they don't vote. AND why are all the stupid people who can't figure stuff out, voting for Democrats? That is the real question, isn't it?

It is clear that it doesn't take brains to vote for Democrats, which is why Democrats all look stupid. And the Republicans aren't far behind, so all you beer swilling Nascar idiots better shut up now.

I'm sure glad I'm Libertarian.

Re:Overdrive

[cat_jesus]

Actually ACORN wasn't faking votes. ACORN is the victim of fraud by unscrupulous people who were filling out bogus forms because they were getting paid to get people to register.

Having bogus registrations is mainly benign. They are unlikely to be used for several reasons. One is that you have to remember the name you used, second is that(in many municipalities) you have to demonstrate that you are indeed that person. Third, the payoff for the bogus registrations is money for making them, not for using them to vote.

This kind of activity is more annoying than detrimental. In other words it has no measurable effect on the outcome.

This is not the case with voter suppression, which the republicans embrace whole heartedly. The McCain Campaign has tried twice(that I know of) this election to bump me off the rolls. Sometimes their means are legal even if highly immoral and unethical. Sometimes their means are illegal.

What does it say about a party that spends huge amounts of time and money trying to prevent people from voting?

Re:Overdrive

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a 46 year-old American citizen. My ancestors came over from Europe 400 years ago. I have been actively interested/involved in politics since I watched Bobby Kennedy get shot on TV when I was 6. I can honestly tell you that there is very little difference between the two candidates other than the color of their skin and their age. The Democratic and Republican parties have become one and the same. If our media, which dominates your airwaves would cover the "other" parties' candidates you would see the lack of difference between the two leading candidates.

Re:Overdrive

[Atzanteol]

Nooo, "American" *also* means "of the Americas." It *also* means "a native or inhabitant of the United States." USian is a made-up derogatory term that is no more accurate than "UKian" or "UAEian."

Re:Overdrive

[Phroggy]

I'm a 46 year-old American citizen. My ancestors came over from Europe 400 years ago. I have been actively interested/involved in politics since I watched Bobby Kennedy get shot on TV when I was 6. I can honestly tell you that there is very little difference between the two candidates other than the color of their skin and their age. The Democratic and Republican parties have become one and the same. If our media, which dominates your airwaves would cover the "other" parties' candidates you would see the lack of difference between the two leading candidates.

Do you honestly believe that the world would be exactly the same as it is now, if Al Gore had won in 2000?

Re:Overdrive

[Hatta]

Man I just posted this in another thread, but it fits here too.

Lets look at some policies. Iraq war, pretty much the same. We'll take the troops out of Iraq when the conditions on the ground allow it, and put them in Afghanistan. Domestic wiretapping? Obama voted for the Bush plan. Economic bailout? Both of them voted for it.

I don't see either of them talking about fundamental change in the way our system works. I don't see either of them talking about cracking down on corporate crime. I don't see either of them talking about returning federal power to its constitutional limits. I don't see either of them talking about Instant Runoff Voting. I don't see either of them talking about ending the war on drugs, or stopping the new war on copyright infringers.

Where are the significant differences on all these issues that matter? You complain about the monopolistic, centralized nature of the media. You should know that both Obama and McCain are against the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. If you care about responsible and balanced journalism you simply don't have a choice in this election.

Re:Overdrive

[Grishnakh]

They're 90% the same, as said before.

Foreign policy: both parties support the War in Iraq, and foreign interventionism in general. Both parties support an oversized military, based in hundreds of bases around the world, rather than concentrating on protecting our borders. Neither party believes in not being the global policeman.

Business regulation: both parties support deregulation of the financial markets, leading to our current mess. The Graham act which overturned Glass-Steagal was passed in 1999, and signed by Clinton, a Democrat. This paved the way for our current troubles. Graham is now McCain's economic advisor, a Republican.

Wall Street Bailout: both parties supported this, the Democrats slightly more than the Republicans, though the plan was concocted and pushed by Bush and Paulsen, Republicans. The Democrats, under Pelosi, were instrumental in getting this passed.

Spending: both parties support massive spending on things which aren't important: bridges to nowhere, etc. Neither party is interested in actually reducing spending. They only differ in how they want to pay for the spending, whether through more taxes, or higher deficits.

Abortion, gay marriage: these are distractions for the two parties to make noise about, to distract people from the issues above which affect them far more.

Law enforcement: how do they differ here? Neither is against it. What a strange thing to say.

Gun control: definitely a difference here, but Bush was in favor of extending the idiotic Assault Weapons Ban. Neither party is all that great in being against gun control.

Immigration: neither party favors reforming immigration laws and securing the border. Illegal immigration is too profitable for business owners.

Drugs: neither party favors legalizing any drugs, even harmless marijuana or even industrial hemp. There's too much drug money invested in Wall Street to allow legalization, and too many bribes from those who profit from the illegal drug trade to our politicians.

Re:Overdrive

[caitsith01]

This is exactly the kind of attitude the OP was talking about. I find it ironic that there are engaged and interested people all over the world who would love to have your vote, yet you refuse to apply your brain and engage in the political process because the candidates don't differ on your pet issues.

From the perspective of the rest of the world, Barak "Let's Talk to Both Our Friends and Our Enemies" Obama is a lot less of a worry than John "Bomb-bomb-bomb, Bomb-bomb-Iran" McCain. Obama has had to talk tough during the campaign to avoid a smear campaign, but it's clear that he favours engagement and multilateralism. McCain appears to favour the 'Bush Doctrine'.

From a domestic perspective, I would have thought that Obama's consistent view, expressed both before and after the current financial crisis, that the Federal Government has a significant role to play in regulating financial markets would be dramatically more appealing than McCain's consistent view that the free market should be left to its own devices at all times, no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary.

There is also the fact that McCain has shown himself ready and willing to cater to absolute lunatics on the religious right who are anti-science, anti-liberal democracy, and just generally scare the hell out of most sane people. I have seen no evidence that Obama will be similarly beholden. I do not want a person who will tolerate the assertion by their running mate that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in charge of a nuclear arsenal.

Finally, and probably most singificantly, the next President will probably replace three of the most liberal judges on the Supreme Court. Do you want men like Scalia and Roberts to dominate the Court, or do you want moderate/progressive judges to provide a counterbalance to the extreme conservatives on the bench at present? In practical terms, if McCain wins, Roe v Wade is gone, gun control laws are gone, separation of church and state is gone, limits on executive power are gone, and any form of affirmative action is gone. Those things seem pretty significant to me.

There's no doubt Obama has engaged in plenty of compromising. As you would be well aware, the nature of your political system is such that there are plenty of times when a vote is going to pass anyway so moderates on either side of the aisle will vote for it. It's stupid and it shouldn't be that way, but it also means that voting records are not an accurate reflection of ideology.

Multicast

[mknewman]

This is why Multicast would have been so nice, one feed goes out to anyone who wanted it. The current point to point way of distributing video is a quick and dirty solution, where multicast is eligant.

What is this Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

and how many of us "no longer have a tv"?

Re:What is this Russia?

[Skapare]

I only "have" TV because my roommate has TV (because of his addiction to "Deal Or No Deal"). It's generally not worth having because it's content controlled by big corporations, not real people.

Re:What is this Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to avoid things that are controlled by huge corporations, then make sure not to use any electricity, fill your car up with gas, or fly on a commercial airplane. Maybe your best option would be to dig a hole, jump in it, and wait for the apocalypse.

I prefer C-SPAN for live, too.

[Bearpaw]

They don't have "analysts" telling me what my reaction is.

C-SPAN

Re:I prefer C-SPAN for live, too.

[jarbrewer]

Or "moderators" telling me that post was Insightful.

Re:I prefer C-SPAN for live, too.

[Bearpaw]

I am sure there are people weak minded enough to have their views changed by what these people say, so I would kind of like to know what they are saying.

I once heard someone in advertising say that some of the easiest people to manipulate are the ones who are convinced that they're too smart (or whatever) to be manipulated.

Re:I prefer C-SPAN for live, too.

[jamesswift]

I'd pay for MST3000 Presidential Debates

Re:"Presidential Agreement"

[coryking]

If you honestly cannot see a difference between McCain and Obama, you might as well write in Palin for president because your IQ would be about the same.

Nader framed his campaigns as "the other guys are basically the same party". As we watch the GOP implode and Bush go down as the worst president in history, are you honestly going to say that there is no difference between both parties, their platforms and their candidates? Seriously?

Do you really foresee an Obama administration twisting words like Terrorism, Freedom (fries), Patriot, etc? Do you foresee him installing crazy supreme court judges that have and will continue to fuck our country until they retire? Do you foresee him installing a vice president who refuses to talk with the press and cannot answer basic questions?

Seriously? Really?

Yes

[Skapare]

Sure, I am. Just hook me up with a few dozen OC-192 connections at each of the largest 100 cities in the country, and set me up with 1000 computers at each site, and I'll stream it in OGG Theora format. Oh, and I'll also need a satellite dish and receiver tuned to the C-SPAN channel.

Re:Much easier at 1.5X speed

[bugeaterr]

I have MythTV, but it only records what Obama says. ;)

IT'S A JOKE PEOPLE!

Re:Linux? No CNN.

[Gallon of Fuel]

I don't know that you can necessarily make the jump between having Linux run their intranet server and the political candidate being a steward to open source in government. I know the /. community as a whole think's Mr. Obama is the FSM incarnate, but come on now.

Re:podcasts? audio? mp3's ?

[mystik]

Awesome, I spotted the links I wanted @ the bottom, I didn't see that the first few times I searched.

thanks again!

Re:OGG or other?

[Valdrax]

Anyone ballsy enough to stream using a more widely available, non-Flash codec?

Are you actually arguing that OGG is more widely available to the viewing public than Flash, Real, or WMV?

It's not about "balls." It's about installed base and the marginal utility of supporting OGG compared to formats installed already on most people's machines. I'd love to see an OGG stream of the debates, but I wouldn't claim that it's "more widely available" in an attempt to suggest that people aren't supporting it for illogical reasons.

Re:Linux? No CNN.

[Jeff Hornby]

You do understand that the chance of the president getting involved in the choice of what operating system to use in the white house is about as likely as the CEO of IBM getting involved in the choice of what brand of toilet paper to use in their office in Bangalore, don't you?

Re:Why bother?

[darkfire5252]

Why drive out and cast a meaningless vote when the swing voters have decided for me?

Guess what? When you're trying to influence an election where the person with the majority of votes is the winner, removing one vote from the vote pool has the effect of giving the other votes more sway. You are literally giving the ignorant voters more say over the course of this nation because you don't want to 'reward' the candidate with your vote. Instead you'd rather reward the candidate by making other votes count more. If you're really pissed off, vote third-party. Will they win? Hell no. But, it will detract from the percentage of people who voted for party 1 or 2, and those percentages are what determines how much public funding third party candidates get to campaign with.

Grow some balls and stand for something. Don't rationalize your own apathy to me; you just enable the current system we have. I'm trying to actually change something.

Perhaps, but ACORN is following the law.

[Xenographic]

Well, we're still missing some of the ACORN story. For one thing, the problem is because they pay people per registration. So some people like to add a bunch of phony registrations to get paid more.

ACORN knows this, so they look for it and fire those people. They also separate the probably fraudulent registrations. But they are required by law to give ALL of the registrations to the elections officials, so they also include a note saying, "These are probably fraudulent, please check. And here are the details of the guy who came up with these probably fraudulent registrations so you can prosecute them."

They've done this for a long time now. Remember that scandal over the illegal firing of US Attorneys? That was because they refused to prosecute ACORN for this years ago because they did not believe that they were doing anything illegal. But Bush's people fired all the people who said it was legal and stacked the deck with hardcore Republicans. So now they're prosecuting.

Even though ACORN is being defrauded by bad workers. Even though ACORN is obeying the law. Even though ACORN verifies the registrations and separates the bad ones in spite of having no legal obligation to do so.

This is just politically motivated nonsense. Yes, there will probably be convictions, but they'll be of people ACORN turned in and recommended for prosecution.