8:09 PM: 

As expected, the debate starts out not with Foreign policy, but with the current economic situation. Obama is trying to make this an indictment of the Economic system put forth by Reagan, extended by Clinton and expanded by Bush.

McCain doesn't really answer the charge of systematic failure or of his history of deregulation, but he does a good job of pushing his bipartisan reputation.

 8:12 PM:

Good lord, can I say how much I hate the words "Main Street" and "Wall Street"? This is part of the ridiculous segregation and culture wars started in the 1960s and we still haven't managed to get over it.

8:14 PM

And there's the earmark hammering. This is a pretty pointless point, since for all the hoopla, earmarking makes up about 0.96% of the Federal budget. It's a fun rallying point for people who don't understand government budgets, but we'd save about 100X if we just left Iraq.

8:22 PM

And the claws come out. Obama and McCain nail each other on their tax policies, specifically about McCain's corporate loopholes and Obama's earmarks. Obama connects this back to the systematic failure. At some point, McCain probably has to answer this.

8:30 PM

Geez, the debate is getting messy. I guess this is what happens when the Foreign Policy debate becomes the economic policy debate. Obama rambled a bit on his answer about "what he will cut." I am shocked that Obama hasn't talked about leaving Iraq yet.

8:33 PM

Ah, there it is.

8:38 PM

We're 40 minutes in, and we finally get to actual foreign policy. Sadly, it's only Iraq.

The first economics debate was really indecisive. Obama and McCain both get their licks in but the time limits didn't let either of them get much explanation in.

 8:42 PM

Hoy! Calling Iraq a fledgling democracy is like calling the situation in Somalia a small tribal divide.

And good god, the surge has not worked, unless you're a fan of ethnic cleansing. How long can we let this lie perpetuate before someone calls McCain out on it?

Do we need a fullscale ethnic war before people realize all our surge is doing is making three separate ethnic nations?

8:55 PM

Winning Pakistani hearts and minds is perhaps the most impossible thing that's been suggested so far. The majority of the people in Pakistan doesn't see Al Qaeda as a threat in of themselves, but as a threat due to their participation in America's war.

The US, for its part, wants to secure stability for Afghanistan, not necessarily Pakistan. This combined with, as Obama correctly points out, our support for Pervez Musharraff who took power in a military Coup d'etat against a civilian government. We supported Musharraff despite his utter disregard for civilian rule and his illegal ascent to power and our money helped Musharraff not only strengthen his iron rule, but also develop nuclear weapons. The only way to win hearts and minds in Pakistan is to turn on Israel, and that wouldn't even guarantee success.

9:05 PM

Fun fact, Iran's 2009 election is largely thought to be very combative with incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fighting both popular and clerical pressure to get his spending and rhetoric under control. Iran's government, curiously, can probably be said to be a more successful democracy than Iraq (or Afghanistan).

I also can't believe anyone is still suggesting sanctions, maybe the 15th time is the charm. Obama slams McCain here by pointing out how North Korea got more powerful while we were ignoring them and stopping them with sanctions.

9:08 PM

Ah-Mah-Din-Ne-Jad

9:12 PM

Ahmadinejad is indeed a dangerous, crazy individual, but let's understand what type of crazy he is. He is, at his core, a fundamentalist who believes strongly in the teachings of Shi'a Islam. As explained by this article:

"For Shiite Muslims, the eventual return of the Imam Mahdi is an
article of faith – equivalent to the second coming of Christ for many
Christians. While few Iranian politicians so publicly embrace this
Messianic worldview, Mr. Ahmadinejad and his aides have stated more and
more frequently that their administration is governed by the Mahdi.

Such beliefs guide Ahmadinejad in both domestic
and international affairs and help explain his stance on Iran's nuclear
program, his unwillingness to succumb to US demands to curb enrichment,
and why his government continues to back anti-Israeli and anti-American
militants in the region."

Ahmadinejad is not calling Israel a "cesspool" because he genuinely believes this is productive dialogue. He does this because he's a very good politician and wants to create a Shi'a alliance with organizations like the Hezbollah. Ahmadinejad at his core is a Shi'a fundamentalist with an enormous ego that doesn't represent the interest of his people. Israel for him is a rallying point, just like Earmarks are for McCain.

9:21 PM

While Ahmadinejad is a good politician, Saakashvilli is not. What really happened is that Saakashvilli miscalculated the degree and strength of his Western alliances. He thought that because his troops practiced with the Americans, Germans, et all, that they would come to his aid. He was wrong, since the entirety of Europe is dependent on Russian oil.

Expansion of NATO, as McCain suggests, is also a very dangerous move. Despite the presence of an oil pipeline in Georgia, it has very little impact on the Russian strategy. If someone were to blow up that pipeline, I doubt the Russians would mind much since it further puts Europe into their grip. What they're afraid of is exactly what McCain is suggesting - further expansion of the NATO alliance into what was former soviet territory.

As late as 2004, before the expansion of NATO into Lativa, Estonia, and Lithuania, Putin put out feelers about actually joining NATO, but once the West broke a promise to stay out of what Russia saw as its sphere of influence, that's when this new, hostile Russia was really born. Since that point, Russia has armed (they recently put a 7 year, 200 billion dollar investment into Russia's military) and expanding NATO into Georgia and Ukraine would simply feed into Russian fears and increase Russian aggression.

9:28 PM

I think Obama and McCain both did an excellent job here, appealing to both the emotions about terrorism and the actual logistics of anti-terrorism. Obama gets a chance to go into his solidarity and world leader speech and thankfully brings up the importance of non-proliferation, which makes it even more upsetting that neither of them pointed out that we're actually proliferating nuclear material to a non-nuclear nation.

9:30 PM

If a timetable leads to the death of the world, I guess we should blame the Iraqis, since the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki already demanded a time table.

9:34 PM

John McCain, fan of ethnic cleansing.

Also, "Russian aggression" is a point of contest. By a lot of accounts, Saakashvilli attacked first, albeit with significant Russian goading. But the fact that Saakashvilli attacked while Putin was in Beijing really doesn't fit into the vision of Russian aggression.

9:38 PM

A really solid job by both candidates. McCain's communication skills were impressive. This was an excellent job of framing the debate. Although he said several things which I believe to be untrue, he did a great job of seeling it. Obama also did a good job of getting his points out there, though I think he didn't get nearly enough shots in on the economy.

 A giant reaction post later.