Last Thursday, our university hosted the 2008 vice presidential debate. Although the debate is unlikely to change the way that people vote, there is always one inevitable question that people ask: who won?

The real winners were the students.

On the most basic level, our school is getting noticed! In fact, even Saturday Night Live showed a clip of Wash. U. While I personally do not buy into the argument that our school’s name recognition, or rather lack thereof, prevents students from getting jobs and internships, it does certainly help students when employers are more familiar with the school.

Throughout the week, we volunteered, appeared on the news, met famous people—and of course we had fun. A friend of mine fits into the last category. He was so anxious to be on the news that he went up to a complete stranger and said, “I heard you were looking to interview students.” The governor of Missouri responded, “No, but we can take a picture.”

As a volunteer, I was assigned to the AB Hospitality Tent in the debate hall, and I was given a difficult task: drink booze, eat steak and welcome famous people to Wash. U. And so began a great night…I moved from table to table, from Senator Liebermann to Governor Richardson, from Katie Couric to Fred Thompson and made sure to enjoy every moment. The night got better by the hour and I even had the confidence to sit down with one of Senator McCain’s staff members who happened to be the prettiest girl in the tent. Then I was rejected and brought back to reality, which was a good thing. Well, at least that’s what I keep telling myself.

Anecdotes aside, the biggest reason for why we are the winners is because we go to a school that is truly committed to its students. Although we may not always like the construction, who can complain about having our own metro station? How about a new student center? And the new hires in the economics department? In many ways, the debate represents a continuation of what Wash. U. has been doing for us year after year: opening doors and investing in our futures. It is a great feeling to be at a school that invests in its students as Wash. U. does—take advantage of it, because four years go by too fast.

Marc Klein
Class of 2009

We thought that, as students with definite opinions, it was incumbent upon us to make ourselves heard. Of course, the method chosen was certainly provocative—in a joking exchange, the idea that “Sarah Palin offends our vaginas” came up as a protest against her positions on various women’s issues, and found its way to a handmade sign that said “Palin is offensive to my vagina.” As the sign stood in stark contrast to the others displayed around campus, it garnered immediate media attention and received a great deal of support from many of the students who saw it.

We decided to take the sign over to the MSNBC live broadcast of “Hardball with Chris Matthews” for the 11 p.m. show (having been there earlier), and once there we took our position between signs reading “Obama/Biden” and “Sarah Palin is hot.” Just as the cameras began to roll, a man in a button-down shirt and headset confronted us and said, “This one needs to be taken down. It’s inappropriate,” slapping at it as he spoke. He was right. It was offensive, but next to other signs with potentially offensive messages, such as one reading “Obama Bin Laden,” it didn’t seem to stand out too significantly.

After we retreated, two other girls took the sign and attempted to hold it up, but he told them the same—it’s inappropriate. They asked why they were being asked to take it down; he replied that they were on “private property” and that he could have “been a hard-ass” and had them removed if they resisted.

They didn’t resist, and we went home, not knowing on what authority he dismissed us.

It wasn’t an earth-shattering moment at the vice presidential debate, but some aspects of the situation do merit consideration.

First, the offensiveness of the sign. Yes, it was provocative and somewhat juvenile; we could have simply said “Palin doesn’t support women’s issues” or something to that effect. But it seemed catchy, it added humor and we weren’t attempting to do anything actively threatening or destructive. Had we merely written “Palin offends me,” the sign most likely could have stayed up. But the “inappropriateness” lay in the word “vagina” more than in the actual message, vitriolic as it may have been. Without launching into a heavy political debate, it’s still saddening that the use of this word continues to create discomfort and that its discussion continues to be limited by the strictures of political correctness.

Second, our treatment as participants and students should be considered. The man who confronted us didn’t offer any proof of authority or any self-evident reasons for his insistence that we remove the sign; he dismissed and threatened us with removal as if we were simply children who didn’t understand. We were taken aback because we feel that Washington University encourages us to express our opinions and that our voices are respected here. We were on campus, participating in an event that was promoted campus-wide, having been reassured that this was a safe place to express ourselves, even in a provocative or otherwise non-traditional manner. Censorship was the last thing we expected.

Part of our upset, too, included the observation that our sign was working. People reacted, paid attention and many offered smiles and words of support; the media followed its creation and display across campus, reporters reacted with surprise and interest. Yes, the expression used was juvenile, but it still made its point. Although this is hardly a harrowing tale of censorship and blatant prejudice, it still underscores continuing issues with implicitly taboo words as well as acceptable political expression in our society.

The day of the debate was the most exciting day I’ve had at Wash. U., and it looked like many students agreed with me. I heard friends throughout the day say, “I wish it was debate day every day!” and “This is even better than W.I.L.D.!”

As someone who has been involved in politics throughout my college career, it was refreshing to see so much passion and energy from the entire student body. I was shocked to see so many students awake before the sun came up to attend “The Early Show” filming in Holmes Lounge. Wash. U. students proved that they care deeply about supporting a whole range of issues, be it a particular candidate/party, the environment, women’s rights, the democratic process or bringing comedy into the seriousness that is politics.

The day after the debate, I walked around campus, and I felt a little sad. The debate brought so much excitement, and then it was all over, and things were back to normal, business as usual. I want to believe that the political energy brought by the debate will not disappear with the camera crews. I hope that people will keep showing their support for their causes and engaging in constructive political dialogue.

Watching the debate in the DUC (or any of the other viewing sites), it made little difference that the debate was taking place five minutes away instead of 500 miles away. But watching it as a large group, surrounded by other students engaged in the political process, made it much more exciting than sitting through an hour and a half of political talk would otherwise be.

There’s no reason why we shouldn’t continue to have debate-watching parties in the DUC for the next two presidential debates and later for the State of the Union and other important political moments.

So many of you wore buttons and held signs supporting your choice ticket, but that’s not what’s going to determine who becomes the next president of the United States. To affect that outcome, you need to do more. You need to register voters. You need to make phone calls and knock on doors for the candidate(s) you believe in. You need to write letters to the editors of local newspapers expressing your opinions. You need to attend political events and speakers more than one day a year. And, of course, you need to vote.

What made the debate so exciting for me was not taking a picture with Chris Matthews or glimpsing at Biden in his motorcade or being interviewed by the media (although certainly, that was all exciting), but rather seeing the Wash. U. student body so politically charged. Disappointed as I was to not make it into the debate hall, a far greater disappointment would be to see that enthusiasm fizzle out without translating into action.

Sophie Cohen
Class of 2009

Last week, however, Wash. U.’s general abstinence from this type of environment was broken in a rather magnanimous fashion. The vice presidential debate submerged the campus in a buzz and energy that must have left ESPN’s favorite institutions teeming with envy. At times, it felt like the school was almost overflowing with cameras, television personalities and general debate-related euphoria. On the rare occasions I wasn’t engaged in the spectacle at hand, I couldn’t help but consider how different things might be if the mood generated by the debate were the norm rather than the extreme, entirely circumstantial exception. What if the nation at large, not just the populace of Wash. U., were constantly excited about politics to the extent that our campus was last Thursday? What if the country were to treat politics like it currently treats athletics?

I can only assume that this hypothetical would depart from the current reality in certain very tangible and very positive ways.

The city in which I was brought up is home to a university with Division I athletics. This particular university’s football team spent the early part of the decade in a position of national prominence. They were talented, entertaining and, for a five- or six-year stint, very successful. Toward the end of this string of successes, the football team’s coach resigned in order to accept a coaching position in the NFL. Since the coach’s departure, the university’s team has back-slided its way to mediocrity and a near-.500 record. Virtually everyone in the city is engaged enough in the university’s athletics to have a personal take on the football team’s recent struggles. Individuals who would likely be unable to tell you the names of the vice presidential nominees can espouse a relatively thorough argument as to the misgivings and solutions for the new coach’s incompetence. I can only imagine how different things might be in socio-political terms if this energy and focus were transposed from football onto politics or other social causes.

As people become more engaged in and educated about any particular thing, their ability to analyze and understand that subject grows exponentially. If people simply spent more time around politics and social dialogue, it seems only natural that their ability to interpret and influence these things would grow as well.

If instead of watching college football on Saturday afternoon, the citizenry of my hometown read the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, they would be as capable of speaking out against political figures as they are football coaches. I honestly believe that a good portion of the social and political issues which have recently befallen the country are due in large part to an unquestioning follow-the-leader type syndrome. On a number of levels, our nation’s politicians have led the country while the people blindly follow and end up in an unfortunate position. The simple remedy for this ill is a more educated and engaged constituency.

It’s in the best interest of our country, specifically the individuals of which it’s comprised, to engage in politics as fully as possible. I acknowledge entirely that this cannot, and never will, manifest itself in an omnipresent vice presidential debate-type atmosphere. Nor would I ever argue that the country should in fact drop athletics in lieu of some newfound political zeal. I would, however, encourage people to spend halftime of their favorite team’s next game watching CNN instead of commercials.

I grew up in University City, and more than 90 percent of my high school peers were from liberal families like mine. I have been raised to believe that economic limitations hinder the possibilities of success for kids and that it is our duty, along with our government’s, to try and level the playing field. I am a strong pro-choice supporter and I believe that God is not offended by condoms or birth control. I believe it is time to change the way we live in order to treat our world and all of its inhabitants better.

At the presidential debate on Thursday, I saw an unambiguous winner (although I don’t like to think of it on those terms). Biden was clear, focused, personable, intelligent, straightforward and, without a doubt, he proved to me that he would be 100 percent capable of taking over our country should the opportunity arise. I sat in Edison Theatre surrounded by liberal minds like mine, and we smiled when Biden used data to back up his statements, when he said something profound and also when Palin repeated herself, stumbled and failed to give answers we deemed appropriate.

There were, however, Palin supporters in the mix too. They proudly and courageously wore their elephant shirts and sat among the “enemy,” watching our smiles (and sneers), and seeing something entirely different from what the rest of us saw. After all, McCain/Palin supporters say that she won without a doubt.

I’ve always been interested in why people make the choices that they do. Mostly, I wonder if I am merely a product of my childhood and genes. Did I only see Biden as the victor on Thursday night because that’s how everyone I know saw him? Did the McCain supporters see what they wanted or needed to see rather than what was right in front of them?  Would I have been able to walk out of that theater admitting Biden’s defeat regardless of what happened on that stage? I hope so.

All of this was passing through my head during the debate, and I wanted to leave knowing that my biases didn’t completely prevent me from seeing clearly—that I gave Palin a chance. I think, as far as I could have been, I was successful. Palin is personable, smart and funny, and I believe she is truly invested in the American people. I also think that, for someone who has been thrust into this political arena, she has held herself together admirably—but she is not who I want for a leader.

In the post-debate aftermath everyone scrambles for their favorite quotes, usually choosing the snippiest comments. To me, there was one moment that resonated beyond any other. It was when Biden shared a lesson he learned from Mike Mansfield.

Mansfield told him, “Joe, understand one thing. Everyone’s sent here for a reason, because there’s something in them that their folks like. Don’t question their motive.” Biden then told us, “I have never since that moment in my first year questioned the motive of another member of the Congress or Senate with whom I’ve disagreed. I’ve questioned their judgment.” As a U.S. citizen who has grown weary of those snippy comments, for me this was one of the most profound moments of the night.

I’ve thought a lot about this comment since Thursday and how I should interpret the subtle relationship between judgment and motive. I think Biden was saying that you can’t question why a person is in public office, or question whether they are motivated by greed or self-aggrandizement. Instead, we can only look at the decisions they make while they have that power, and whether the decisions they make are the best for our country.

I think the time of snide remarks and pathetic attempts at mean humor should end, or at least decrease their volume; we should stop trying to degrade the “other” side; we should think more for ourselves and rest less on what our parents and friends think; and finally, as Joe Biden said so well, we need to stop questioning each other’s motives. I will venture to say that close to all Americans want what is best for our country—we just differ on how to get there—and that should be the focus of politics.

We would like to congratulate the administration and the student body for making the debate such a success. More than 400 students were able to attend the debates, nearly three times as many as had been allowed to attend debates in the past. For students who did not receive tickets, the University arranged for other ways to be involved on campus, including providing a large viewing screen in the Danforth University Center where students could watch the debate together. The skillful handling of logistics by the University allowed most students who wished to participate in the debate a real opportunity to do so.

The students, to their credit, did not take these opportunities for granted. Students of all political persuasions took to the campus to advocate their beliefs in a way that was serious, passionate and respectful. The president of Student Union, Brittany Perez, gave a thoughtful and eloquent speech at the start of a debate that was seen by millions of viewers. Overall, the University and the student body were well represented.

However, students should not regard their conduct during the debate as a unique response to a one-time event. With two more presidential debates and nearly one month remaining before the election in November, the dedication and engagement of students will become more, not less, important in the following weeks. Students should do all they can to avoid slipping back into the old habits of schoolwork and studying to the exclusion of national awareness.

Students should continue to familiarize themselves with candidates, to follow the events of the financial crisis and the war in Iraq and to educate themselves on the ballot initiatives they will have a chance to influence in November. There may not be cameras around campus anymore, but that is no reason not to continue public assembly for education and discussion of the important issues that will soon be decided upon.

Students were a class act during the debate. But let’s make this engagement a habit, not an exception.

After the vice presidential debate on Thursday, representatives from both parties confirmed that increased access to higher education will be a top priority for their presidential candidates.

In addition to making federal aid programs easier to comprehend for parents, as well as supporting Pell Grants—the federal government’s leading college aid program—Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama plans to create the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which would pay for the first $4,000 of a college student’s tuition in exchange for 100 hours of community service.

The plan would also pay for roughly two-thirds of a typical public university’s tuition and make community college free for most students.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination this election cycle, said that education would be a prominent focus in the Illinois senator’s presidency.

“This would be a major priority,” Richardson told Student Life after the vice presidential debate on Thursday. “The cornerstone of the Obama-Biden proposal is scholarship for every student—$4,000 in exchange for one year for community service.”

Republican nominee John McCain’s higher education plan is focused on simplification. If elected, McCain would simplify higher education tax benefits and the federal financial aid process by consolidating programs.

The Arizona senator also plans to eliminate earmarks to promote research funding and wants to reform the private lending industry to make private loans simpler and more effective.

“[McCain] has always had an interest in education issues,” Frank Donatelli, deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, said. “He believes very strongly in K-12 choice and education. He favors a greater variety of assistance to college students to enable parents to send their children through college.”

For sophomore Sydney Sherman, education is a critical issue that she believes both candidates should emphasize in their campaigns.

“In order to have a better economy and society, in a few years we need to have more educated people who get can get better jobs and run the system,” Sherman said.

In order to meet the record demand for federal financial aid, the Pell Grants program may need up to $6 billion in additional taxpayer money next year, according to a recent New York Times article. The Department of Education said that the next president would struggle with financing the shortfall of Pell Grants.

But Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who spoke to students in Edison Theatre on Thursday, said that repairing Pell Grants would not be enough to fix the college tuition crisis.

“We’re not going to be able to patch this up by simply fixing Pell Grants,” the former Vermont governor said. “The Republicans cut Pell Grants, and when we took over [Congress] in ’06, we put the Pell Grants back to where they were. But in the long term, as long as you’re in an industry where the rate of tuition [increase] goes up at twice the rate of inflation…you can’t keep up, and neither can Pell Grants.”

Richardson acknowledged the current shortfall of higher education funds and said that Obama would work to remedy the situation.

“In other words, [Obama-Biden] will fund the Pell Grant program, the work-study program and the [American Opportunity Tax Credit] scholarship,” Richardson said.

Despite the current troubled state of the economy, Richardson said that Obama would still be able to fund his higher education plans by reordering priorities.

Although college campus tend to have liberal leanings, surrogates for both parties said that college-aged students are significant constituents, and if elected, their candidates would ensure that the college voice is heard.

Linda Douglass, a senior strategist for the Obama campaign, said that Obama is running a grassroots campaign that will involve politics in people’s every day lives, including in the lives of young people.

“The whole theory of this campaign is that the power should come from the grassroots up,” Douglass said. “You involve people whether it is in energy conservation, whether it is in improving school, whether it is in thinking through ways to have more green energy [or] whether it is new ways to plan transportation. There are a lot of ways in which you can involve people in their everyday lives.”

Although McCain has not been as successful in grabbing the youth vote as Obama has, Donatelli said that the McCain education proposals would prove to be beneficial for the young generation.

“Sen. McCain has always had a special affection for young people. He draws energy from the energy of young people,” Donatelli said. “Young people have a friend with a McCain and Palin administration.”

With additional reporting by Puneet Kollipara

John McCain’s Higher Education Policy

• Simplify Higher Education Tax Benefits

McCain believes that the existing tax benefits are too complicated, and many eligible families don’t claim them. By simplifying the existing benefits, he hopes to ensure that a greater number of families have a lower tax burden when they are helping to send their children to college.

• Simplify Federal Financial Aid

McCain believes too many programs and a complicated application process deter many eligible students from seeking student aid. He hopes that consolidating programs will help simplify the administration of these programs, and help more students have a better understanding of their eligibility for aid.

• Fix the Student Lending Programs

John McCain has proposed an expansion of the lender-of-last resort capability of the federal student loan system and will demand the highest standard of integrity for participating private lenders. Effective reforms and leveraging the private sector will ensure the necessary funding of higher education aspirations, and create a simpler and more effective program in the process.

Barack Obama’s Higher Education Policy

• Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit

Obama and Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university.

• Simplify the Application Process for Financial Aid

Obama and Biden will streamline the financial aid process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and enabling families to apply simply by checking a box on their tax form, authorizing their tax information to be used, and eliminating the need for a separate application.

The debate was the most highly watched of any political debates since the 1992 presidential debate between Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot.

A total of 69.9 million Americans tuned in to view the vice presidential debate, according to a Nielsen press release. In comparison, only 52.4 million viewers watched the first presidential debate on Sept. 26.

According to Wrighton, the University’s national recognition has increased because of the debate and its record turnout in viewers.

“You know you can’t buy this type of coverage,” Wrighton said. “I think it contributes to the overall positive reputation of Washington University. There were very notable members of the media here.”

Wrighton said that University students contributed by far the largest number of viewers watching the debate live in the debate hall.

An unexpectedly large number of students also saw the debate in person. The 2000 and 2004 presidential debates that were held at the University used a town-hall format, which offered limited seating on the floor. As a result of not using the town-hall format this time, in conjunction with the fact that both presidential campaigns released extra tickets, allowed more than 400 students to be admitted into the debate hall.

In the past, roughly 150 tickets have typically been issued to students.

Wrighton praised Rob Wild, assistant to the chancellor and chair of the Vice Presidential Debate Steering Committee, for his role in getting more tickets for students.

“Rob Wild was very effective, because the Commission on Presidential Debates didn’t want to give so-called obstructed view seats, but Rob said we could put more students in the debate hall,” Wrighton said.

According to Wrighton, many have wondered whether the enthusiasm exhibited by students on the day of the debate will translate to increased turnout at the voting booth.

“I think the estimates for voter turnout are pretty high; the opportunity to really make a difference is there. I think a positive outcome from having the debate is [that] it heightens people’s awareness as well as interest,” Wrighton said.

In addition to the crowds watching the event, 3,100 media credentials were requested for debate day, and all were granted.

“The level of media participation was extremely high,” Wrighton said. “Of course, [Alaska] Gov. [Sarah] Palin being drawn into being the vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party—a person not well known, not ever having been involved in national politics—created a huge amount of interest.”

The University stopped granting new credentials on Aug. 15, but Wrighton said that it was probably a mistake.

“In retrospect, that was not really right,” he said. “The conventions had not even been held [by Aug. 15].”

To counterbalance the early deadline, the University along with the Commission on Presidential Debates accepted additional requests for media credentials after the deadline.

According to Wrighton, the debate cost approximately $3 million in total. The University shared the weight of the financial burden with its sponsors, Emerson, Wachovia Securities and AT&T.

The exact cost of the debate, however, has not yet been calculated.

“I don’t know and we won’t know for some time. Just to begin with, we put $1.35 million in the hands of the Commission on Presidential Debates to support their expenses. And then, we have our own expenses,” Wrighton said.

Many items from the debate have appeared on eBay to be put up for sale in the past week, Wrighton said, including parking passes, press kits, lanyards and buttons.

Plans to apply for hosting a debate in 2012 are not yet underway.

“Right now, we have made no plans, but we will consider that opportunity when it comes up as I hope it will,” Wrighton said. “2012 is just around the corner.”

Two prominent campus political groups, the College Democrats and College Republicans, both utilized the extensive media and interest group activity on campus by making sure that they involved as much of the student body in the day’s events as possible.

“I don’t think any one moment was a highlight. The day was a highlight for campus,” junior Ben Guthorn, president of College Democrats, said. “There was so much going on on campus. [The College Democrats’] main goal was to get people involved in the things already happening. We couldn’t provide anything more exciting than [MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews”] shooting on campus.”

Charis Fischer, president of the College Republicans, was able to enter the media filing center—or Spin Alley—where national media and political personalities gathered during the debate.

Fischer said that that experience complemented the opportunities afforded to her group members, with news channels canvassing the campus with their cameras and microphones.

“For me personally, [the day’s highlight] was being inside the debate and Spin Alley,” Fischer said. “For the group, it was being in the national spotlight.”

Neither the College Democrats nor the College Republicans have any desire to rest on their laurels now that the debate has passed. According to Guthorn, the Democrats intend to continue their political efforts past Thursday and up through Election Day on Nov. 4, with an emphasis on activism this week.

“Our focus has always been leading up to Oct. 8, the voter registration deadline for every student on campus,” Guthorn said. “We have registered probably most all of the students on the South 40. We need to make a really strong push for the off-campus students and off-campus dorms.”

Past the registration deadline, the Democrats will focus on informing voters and coordinating with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign base in Missouri, which Guthorn said is eager to work with Washington University students.

“We’re going to need to have a conversation with [Obama’s] campaign,” he said. “We’ll be canvassing and phone banking, speaking about the time leading up to Election Day. We’re going to use as many volunteers as we can take to help Wash. U. become knowledgeable about [Obama] and help persuade voters between now and Nov. 4.”

For the Republicans, the goal is similar. While Fischer recognizes the group’s smaller presence on campus, she said that the College Republicans’ activity on debate day helped show her what needs to be done between now and the election.

“I think it was clear that we were outnumbered [on Thursday], but it is energizing for the election because we know we have an uphill battle,” Fischer said. “It inspired us to keep plugging along and spread our message.”

In wanting to harness last week’s political energy, both groups will work with Student Union (SU) and will run programs on a campus whose normal level of activism is lower than it was leading up to the debate.

Both group leaders said that they want to see SU’s role limited to funding events, as they do not want the student political body expressing views on national issues.

“[SU] Treasury should be funding election events,” Fischer said. “Since it’s an election year they should focus on that. I think they’re doing a good job.”

Jeff Nelson, SU vice president of administration, agreed with the groups’ assessment of SU’s role and said that SU has been fulfilling its mission of supporting activities while remaining non-partisan.

“SU does not take positions on national political issues,” he said. “We do try to actively fund studs on campus that want to advocate for certain beliefs. We don’t fund these groups to campaign, but we do fund those groups to raise awareness of certain issues.”

Given the funding, Guthorn believes that the campus atmosphere will be more conducive to election activity than in past years due to the race’s importance.

“People realize that this is the deciding election for their lifetime,” he said. “Whoever wins the 2008 election, the policies decided in the next four years will grievously affect the remainder of their lives. I think students understand how monumental the 2008 presidential election is, more than 2000 and more than 2004.”

Although Fischer agrees that the campus is more active than usual, she added that there is still work to be done.

“I was surprised there weren’t more students around Chris Matthews,” Fischer said. “There are a lot of people who could be more informed than they are.”

Although the campus may be pulsating with political energy, both Guthorn and Fischer are skeptical of the possibility of substantial bipartisan programming in the future.

“I imagine if we win they won’t want to [program together], and if they win we won’t want to,” Fischer said. “We’re not going to rule it out, but due to the hostility of their group toward us, it doesn’t look likely.”

Reporting by Ben Sales and John Scott. Written by Ben Sales, David Song and Kat Zhao.

The tickets, which were allotted to Washington University by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), were first distributed through the University’s lottery system. When the number of tickets available exceeded the number of lottery numbers drawn, tickets were distributed to student leaders.

“The real reason we had more seats in there was that we had a lot more partial and obstructed view seats on the sides,” Rob Wild, assistant to the Chancellor and chair of the Vice Presidential Debate Steering Committee, said. “Because this is not like a theater where we know how many seats there are, literally, until 48 hours up to the debate they were still setting the number of seats on the floor.”

There was no shortage of interest in attending the debate: 7,148 students applied for tickets before the lottery closed on Friday, Sept. 26. Initially the University expected to receive tickets for only 100 to 150 seats, but as the week progressed, it quickly became clear that more seating would be available.

“I’m just so thrilled,” Wild said. “We thought we were going to get 150 students in and we got nearly three times that many.”

Because the University was given so many tickets, more tickets could be distributed to students in the lottery.

389 students came to the drawing, leaving 43 tickets to spare. With such a substantial number of tickets remaining—and no way of contacting the students with lower lottery numbers—University administrators decided to give tickets to student leaders who were not a part of the lottery.

According to Assistant Vice Chancellor for Students Jill Carnaghi, there were three options: the University could have let the seats go empty, given the tickets to administrators or given them to students they know.

“[Letting the seats go empty] would have been a crime, and giving the tickets to administration and faculty would go against everything we stand for, and what we have done in each debate we got,” Carnaghi said.

In the end, the decision to keep all the CPD tickets in the hands of students allowed 43 students who were not in the lottery to receive tickets. Students targeted for the second distribution of tickets included campus leaders, volunteers and students known to the administration.

The total 432 tickets distributed to students do not include an unknown number of students who received tickets from the media outlets for whom they were working.

Freshman Parsa Bastani was one of the lucky few who received a ticket but was not in the top 300 lottery.

“I was pulsating entering, because I wasn’t originally supposed to have a ticket,” he said. “It was such an electric atmosphere.”

As an undecided voter, junior Jimmy Cox was focused on the issues.

“I’m very excited,” he said. “I’m just looking forward to hear[ing] both of them. I’m on the fence right now, so I want to hear what they have to say.”

Overall, the debate’s focus seemed to be on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, as many students went into the debate with their eyes on her.

“I pretty much have a very Tina Fey-opinion of Sarah Palin right now, so it’ll be interesting whether the extra training she’s done for this has gotten her up to date,” junior Emily Lebsack said. “As for Biden, I have a lot of respect for him and for his experience.”

With additional reporting by Sam Guzik and Dan Woznica.