Last Tuesday, Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union, spoke following a live streaming of the vice presidential debate in Maxey Auditorium.

Strossen’s visit on the night of the vice presidential debate was a coincidence. It was the only day that worked for both Strossen and Whitman.

“This is a very exciting time for civil liberties not only with a new administration coming in but there has been such an outcry to restore the Constitution to its original intent from the American people,” said junior and president of Whitman Civil Liberties Union, Kelli Kuhlman.

In response to this, the ACLU created a pledge for this November’s election called “I’m a Constitution Voter.” By signing it, voters are saying that they will make the Constitution a top priority when voting. Kuhlman collected 130 signatures on Whitman’s campus.

“Having Nadine at the debate was great,” said Kuhlman. “I feel she provided a new perspective for students who were not aware of how a candidate could affect the Constitution.”

Sophomore Jeremy Guggenheim also enjoyed Strossen’s speech, but he found it less illuminating.
“I didn’t think she presented me with any new information,” said Guggenheim. “I thought her speech was only relevant in an indirect way.”

It is the policy of the ACLU to be strictly non-partisan. Their goal is to praise those who are following the Constitution and reprimand those who aren’t. For this reason, Strossen was unable to make a statement regarding the winner of the debate.

For senior Laura Spoor, Biden was the clear winner.

“Palin also appeared confidently, which created the illusion that she was smart and doing well. Biden actually had substance and laid out his argument systematically,” said Spoor.

“The debate made me depressed with the state of the world to think that Palin could be president of the United States,” wrote junior Seth Bergeson in an e-mail. “Palin and Tina Fey, who plays her on Saturday Night Live, basically seemed interchangeable.”

This debate was much anticipated by Whitman students.

“People came to the debate expecting a slaughter, something better than the Katie Couric interview,” said sophomore Bailey Arrango.

Spoor was surprised at the loud cheering, or jeering, during the debates being streamed in the Maxey auditorium.

“I thought it would be dead silent, people intently watching the debate,” said Spoor.
The majority of the jeering was aimed at Palin.

“Biden isn’t the most eloquent speaker so I think the jeering was biased,” said Guggenheim.

“However this was a public event at a left leaning liberal arts college. The debate had a real sports vibe to them; everyone was rooting for their home team.”

“I find party politics to be generally absurd and even at times depressing, especially around election season, and watching the big Biden-Palin debate … with hundreds of other Whitties was a therapeutic experience for me,” wrote junior Karl Wallulis in an e-mail to the student’s listserv.

“The difference between the debate and the Katie Couric interview was that the moderator of the debate has to be fair and give both candidates equal time, whereas an interview, Couric was able to push Palin when she didn’t think she was answering the question,” said senior Jill Laney.

“Palin spoke well but danced around a lot of questions and completely avoided others,” said Spoor.
However, Spoor isn’t sure the Maxey auditorium is the right place to vent.

“The showing in Maxey was a community event with people who were maybe undecided and wanting to make an informed decision,” said Spoor. “I think all the cheering distracted from that.”

“I think the Maxey auditorium is a perfect venue for those who want to collectively express their frustration with politics as usual,” wrote Wallulis.

Guggenheim did notice a conservative presence at the debates.

“McCain supporters were the minority but they were vocal,” said Guggenheim.