And the world rejoiced for the 44th President of the United States of America.

We begin with Canada.

“Hell yeah!” exclaimed seven star, a University of Manitoba psychology student in western Canada, continuing about the Obama win:

In what amounts to an historic election, Obama seemingly blew the old fart McCain away. I almost feel sorry for John, tear…./tear. Only thing is, Obama is inheriting a nice deficit, and 2 long wars. Will he be able to give the people what he promised, I mean, the money has gotta come from somewhere, but where that is will be something we will find out soon.

Farther west, California resident Jennifer Ayala, blogging at College in Canada, eh, marking her status as a first-year student at the University of British Columbia, wrote the next four years will be interesting:

I was totally praying for a McCain-shaped victory, but I’m not one to dwell on disappointments. Okay so future-President-Obama supports things that I am 100% against, but that just means that in order to win those battles, I (and anyone else who feels the same way I do) need to be more creative.

…allow me to address any fellow Americans that may be reading: regardless of whether you supported Obama or McCain, there’s no better time than the present to be the change you wish to see in the world. The United States is OUR country, not one man’s country, and let’s never forget that. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Several hundred miles east, Patti, a middle-aged woman from eastern Ontario, laments about traditionally not following American elections. In this case, she argues history was made:

The American people have elected a black person to their highest office. I never thought I’d live to see it. I just learned that for the first time in American history, 17 woman have been elected to their Senate. Here I thought 30 women in our House of Commons was just a good start. I guess progress has different measures.

Elsewhere in Canada, the folks behind leftcoast.ca praised Obama as:

…the most amazing and most statesman-like individual that has graced the world stage in a very long time. Congratulations to the USA for electing an amazing individual as their 44th President. Beautiful.

And the woman behind Canadian blog My Mental Milkcrate is happy for Lucky Number 44 and wants to know where you were when you heard the news:

Where were you? I was arriving home from my writing class to find my husband at the kitchen table, watching McCain’s concession speech on MSNBC Live. I was shocked that the results were declared so early. I interrupted a writing session to watch Obama’s first speech as president-elect. Because it will be history. Except I can’t help thinking that they’ve called it with too few votes actually counted. So tonight I will let out this breath I’ve been holding for months, and tomorrow I will breathe normally.

Also worth mentioning is Jason Kadlecik, a Canadian blogger from the province of Alberta, who is happy for his southern neighbors, though questions Obama's socialist leanings:

I predict that four years from now people will look back on the Obama presidency and say “Wow. We voted for change. Now…what exactly did he change?” The money for “spreading the wealth around” has to come from somewhere.

I wonder if Americans will realize that it’s THEM that the money is going to come from.

Regardless, he’s an educated, charismatic man and I wish him luck in the next four years. As any previous president can tell him, he’s going to need it!

Emotions are similar across the pond, albeit few are awake at this late hour.

With a blog title of “Byebye Bush,” a blogger behind Dutchfiction yelped:

YIHAAA!!

I’m happy I didn’t sleep and watched CNN live. Obama made it, and it feels so good. All alone in my livingroom (the rest of the house is still asleep) I witnessed the start of a new beginning.

Belgian blogger Marco Rossi offers simple words that change can happen:

Thank you Obama.

You did it. You showed the world that change can happen.

In Manchester, United Kingdom, blogger John McGough believes Obama can not only provide change but America proved it can overcome its differences and prejudices, signs that the world is ready to accept Obama with open arms:

What you should see happening in the coming hours, weeks and days is leaders the world over going out of their way to congratulate the President-Elect, most will try to network with him and develop and ongoing relationship which has often soured under the Bush administration.

As a result of Obama's election, overnight worldwide opinion of America will change. Suddenly countries which were frosty and cold towards America will soften their stance and offer an open hand toward the new president, leaders will view America as a changed country, a country that has finally began to embrace global ideals of the world, a country that has finally began to to shine as the true beacon of the land of the free, yeah one man can really make that much of a difference.

Finally, we turn to British blogger Nadeem Walayat and editor of The Market Oracle, who theorizes the first 100 days of an Obama Administration:

1. Clearly President Obama's focus will be on reinvigorating the U.S. Economy by a series of stimulus packages running to several hundreds of billions aimed at Main Street, that will aim to spread the wealth so as to bolster consumer spending, which will actually have an positive impact on the economy and this boost therefore stock markets, instead of the Bush administrations version of spreading of wealth to Wall street banks which have no intention of using these funds to provide loans to Main Street but rather utilising the billions in merger and acquisitions activities.

2. Withdrawal from Iraq, and bring to a close America's Afghanistan moment, the invasion of Iraq was built on blatant lies of a. Iraq being connected to Sept 11th, and b. that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. These lies were perpetuated by an incompetent Bush administration so as to grab Iraq's oil reserves. The quick 3 month war has turned into a 6 year quagmire costing more than 4,000 american lives and more than 100,000 iraqi lives, with the bill of $3 trillion strangling the U.S. economy, a significant amount of which has disappeared in Bush and Cheney cronie corporations.

3. Greater world wide co-operation following the failed Bush policy of “your either with us or against us,” both with regards the economy and military threats.

As the world rejoices, Voices without Votes react and are brought to Reuters' web server from near and far.

What does the world think of its peers? Please add a comment below or link to us from your blogs and spread the love for a new American President, a welcoming world, and yourselves.

What are people saying, you ask?

We start with America's northern neighbor and the path that took Canadian travel writer Daniel Sturgis around the world before settling and marrying in Rabat, Morocco. With his global perspective, Sturgis surmises an easy victory for Obama today, doubting any significant number will vote Republican:

If people around the world were going to vote for the American president, I'd wager Obama would win with at least 90% of the vote.

In Africa and the Middle East, it would be pushing 100%, with only a few extremists voting for McCain because he would be better for the hate-America campaign.

A 27-year-old female Michigan resident, also from Rabat, Morocco, writes as Kaoutar and listens to Democrats and Republicans at Michigan State University. She suggests the Middle Eastern perspective on the election does not necessarily agree on the best man for the White House:

What they believe is that the Republican policy is what is needed in the Middle East. It’s not that they are happy with the situation there, but that, according to them, the problem with Democrats is that they are “flexible” and that solving some problems, like the Syrian presence is Lebanon and Saddam’s rule (both of which ended during Bush’s presidency) need “firm actions,” like those the Republicans, rather than the Democrats, are able to take.

…I’m keeping my fingers crossed for Obama though, the candidate I personally think is more likely to make the right decisions.

Another Moroccan blogger, Ibn Kafka, believes both candidates have similar foreign policy platforms, arguing Obama would be hawkish on Israel and Afghanistan to McCain's Iraq, and both of them would pressure Iran and shut down Guantanamo.

Does all of this mean that I wouldn’t vote, if I were entitled to? Certainly not: I’d vote for Ralph Nader, of course, provided that I lived in a state having him on the ballot. Otherwise, I’d vote Obama, extremely reluctantly - the fact that Al Gore would probably act as his adviser on global warming issues would convince me that there is a small difference - although one should remember that the Kyoto protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions was ditched by the Clinton administration, with Gore serving as vice-president.

Oh and yes: of course, it’d be a nice symbol to have an Afro-American president, but the only thing he has in common with Martin Luther King or Malcolm X is the colour of his skin. And I must say that I am afraid that his honeymoon with foreign media and countries could undeservedly deflect much of the criticism that his policies would otherwise warrant.

In Rwanda, an anonymous blogger and Obama fan writing under the moniker amazedlife, is nervous about the election:

I pour over maps on the internet, willing more states to turn blue, even though what is blue already is probably enough.

It gets dark at 5:00 p.m., now, and I keep thinking maybe I should buy one of those full-spectrum lights, although I think an Obama victory tomorrow could carry me through many dark evenings.

I'm arranging a steady stream of activities to keep me from chewing my own fingers to nubs tomorrow night.

Some take the middle road, such as this Ethiopian blogger who merely offers wishes of Happy Election Day:

This post is dedicated to our friends and readers who have put so much hope in the elections today in the United States. Inside and outside the country.
So, have a happy Election Day.

Este post está dedicado a nuestros amigos y lectores que tienen tantas esperanzas puestas en las elecciones de hoy en Estados Unidos. Dentro y fuera del país.
Que tengas un feliz día electoral.

The rambling Sandmonkey in Egypt says it simpler in a post titled, The End is Here:

OK, what are you doing? GO OUT THERE AND VOTE!

Flying to the southern terminus of Africa, Paul and KerryAnne of Cape Town Daily Photo shout-out to their approximate 50 percent American readers of their South African blog and offer hope for winds of change in the election:

We are watching the unfolding of your elections with keen interest - the outcome will certainly impact us, and the rest of the world too. Our wish is that today would herald a new era, and a change that we can believe in.

So if you haven't already, do go and cast your vote, and help make a little bit of history.

Coming full circle, we return to Daniel Sturgis, the Canadian expat living in Morocco:

If a President McCain pledged that any Americans remaining in Iraq hoped to be treated as temporary guests, Iraqi people would have a hard time swallowing it. But if a President Obama spoke the magic words of withdrawal and friendship, they just might. That's the key difference. Obama has a chance to do a lot of symbolic good at a time where it's sorely needed. The times of animosity, go it alone, with us or against us, stay the course and other pigheaded Bushisms needs to come to an end.

With McCain, it might come to an end politically.

But with Obama, it will come to an end politically and symbolically. That is why Americans who love their country, who hope their children can travel the world without claiming to be Canadian, or who hope for a better tomorrow, should vote for Barrack Obama.

The London Times broke the story on October 30, and both global mainstream media and bloggers followed suit.

Two days later, we learned from the Associated Press that Onyango is living here illegally, which complicates issues considering she contributed $260 to her nephew's presidential campaign.

Cuban blogger Zury echoes the Times' find and opines:

I don't know about you, but with the millions he made with the book and being that he referred to his aunt, with such affection, you would think, he would share his wealth, like he wants to do with the wealthiest Americans.

“If she is violating laws, those laws have to be obeyed,” Obama told CBS News. “We're a nation of laws. Obviously that doesn't lessen my concern for her. I haven't been able to be in touch with her. But I'm a strong believer that you have to obey the laws.”

Canadian blogger Jonathan Strong, a conservative, is not convinced, questioning recent poll data whether Obama and John McCain aren't closer in American viewpoints, but moreover positing Obama was denying facts to the American people:

It is illegal to accept campaign contributions from those who don't hold a Green Card or are not citizens. Obama's campaign has come under fire for having very loose credit card rules on for online donations. It is suspected that he may have received millions of dollars in illegal donations from overseas and foreigners.

Obama is denying that he knew his aunt was in the US illegally, but such denials from Obama are common place. He denied being close to Rev. Wright, and being in the church congregation when racist statements were made. He denied being friends with Bill Ayers. He denies being close to Rashid Khalidi and Tony Rezko… you get the picture.

Across the pond, Dutch blogger Michael van der Galien of PoliGazette suggests it is unfair to criticize Obama for failing to chastise his aunt:

Although it would be fascinating to hear this woman’s life story, those who go after both her and Obama on this subject are crossing the line of decency and normal political discourse. This aunt is not running for president, Obama is. It is fair to look at how he treats relatives, especially if he bragged about having great relationships with them in his books, but those relatives themselves cannot be touched.

Some readers of conservative blog Ace of Spades argued that Onyango’s status indicates Obama may have known his aunt was in the country illegally and may even have assisted her. If Obama was running on a strict anti-illegal immigration platform, calling on friends and relatives of illegal immigrants to report those people to immigration officials so they can be deported, Obama could potentially be criticized. But that is not the case. Obama is not pretending to be a hardliner on the issue of immigration.

Furthermore, Onyango is Obama’s aunt. If Obama knew she was here illegally, and he probably did, does anyone truly suggest he should have reported her to authorities? His own aunt? That is what the Hitler Jugend and youth organizations in the Soviet Union did. But in any normal, humane society, such behavior would be condemned as immoral, unthankful and worse. It would be betrayal of the worst kind: betrayal of one’s own relatives. It does not get much worse than that. Not in any decent society, at least.

Additionally, since the issue of Onyango’s status as an illegal alien does not tell us anything about Obama being a hypocrite or worse, the only net effect of making this a big issue is to attack a person who is not running for office. This woman should be considered off limits.

Among other bloggers on the issue, few captured the essence of Kyle from Citizen Orange, a U.S.-based and Guatemala-inspired group blog. Kyle tracked progressive bloggers on both sides of the Auntie Zeituni issue and concluded:

The debate over this story has devolved into one of Republican nativism and Democrats and their allies either describing this as smear or running as far away from this as they can. If having an unauthorized migrant relative is a smear, than smear me too.

(Hat tip to Thai blog Jotman, via British blog Ten Percent.)

After quoting various sources on the matter, including a pro-migrant immigration lawyer who suggests the leak to the AP was a federal law enforcement official, Kyle further theorized:

[W]hile nativists are screaming “ILLEGAL” at the top of their lungs and “progressives” are refusing to defend unauthorized migrants, it appears that everyone's lost sight of who the real “ILLEGAL” is. That “federal law enforcement agent” broke U.S. immigration law. Perhaps the anonymous source should be deported?

…In pointing fingers no one even thought to protect the rights of Obama's aunt as an asylee. This disclosure could possible result in great harm for Obama's aunt, especially as the situation in Kenya has deteriorated.

Malawi blogger Steve Sharra, a visiting professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, intellectualizes Oyango's and Obama's African burden in a long piece of prose you can read on your own.

Extracting pieces from his blog post is the following:

In the documentary Life and Debt about the effects of IMF’s structural adjustment policies on Third World economies, by Stephanie Black, there’s a contrast made about what it takes for an American to enter Jamaica, and what it takes for a Jamaican to enter the US. For the former, it is a mere driver’s license at the port of entry. For the latter, as with most Third World people around the world, it is a herculean, heart-rending process that stretches for months. Several thousands of visa applications get rejected every single day, each of them having paid the equivalent of a non-refundable US$100. The inside of the embassy itself is a place that reduces one to fear and humiliation, requiring one to prove one’s humanity before one is considered worthy of entry.

Sharra continues:

The burden for the kind of change the world is anticipating ought not to be carried by Obama alone, if at all. As Dr. Makau Mutua, Dean and Professor of Law at State University of New York at Buffalo wrote in June 2008, the US presidency is very different from the African presidency, and most other presidencies for that matter. If elected, Obama’s constituency will be the numerous interest groups who wield influence in US domestic and foreign policy. Obama may personally understand the importance of changing the image of Africa and Africans in the eyes of Americans, but it will have to be a slow, gradual, deliberate process, or else it may merely provoke unintended consequences. And in the meantime, Aunt Zeituni has to accept her place in the hierarchy, follow the law, and return to Kenya.

And Kenya? What does Kenya say?

Failing to find Kenyan bloggers on the issue, the Kenyan Broadcasting Corporation comes to the rescue with a report by Zipporah Njeri of the Kenyan News Agency who writes from Nyang'oma Kogelo, the village where Obama's father was born.

Njeri didn't write about Zeituni Onyango but did speak to Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, Sarah Onyango Obama, who continues to live in Kogelo village and follows her grandson's progress overseas. She said:

Obama is God's gift to the world, and many people from various parts of the world have confirmed this to me. If it happens that our son wins, come back here on Wednesday and you will witness the whole village in dancing frenzy!

Before anyone suggests that Sarah might consider emigrating to America, she shook her head to the reporter and exclaimed, “Home is home and remains the best place for a person of my age.”

If you want to know the latest political advice from Palestinian group blog KABOBfest on whether to vote for Democratic candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, the answer is clear: Don't vote.

Suggesting Arab Americans not vote on November 4, QuiQui writes:

How about we hear not one. single. word. of complaint for the next four years from those who are about to vote the trash in next Tuesday to replace the garbage they voted in eight years ago?

Arab Americans were asked vote for George W. Bush in 2000 in swing states like Florida by the same people now asking that Arab Americans living in swing states vote for Obama.

How about the Arab American leadership like those from the Arab American Institute stop trying to lead.

How about Arab Americans sit this one out. How about Arab Americans not vote. That way, this time, you can have every right to complain when Obama or McCain screw everything up.

How about, instead of the call to play ping-pong between Republicans and Democrats every four years, we hear calls to spend our energies on imagining and living under genuine democracy. Ways that do not rely on “leaders” to partake in the impossibility of “representation.” Ways that encourage us to do politics every day — not once every two or four years.

Electoral politics is not politics, yet we allow it to the be beginning and the end of our democracy oligarchy. Asking that everyone participate in this system is not going to change it any. On the contrary, it only legitimizes it and renders it our only thinkable solution.

Canadian blogger Darryl Wolk disagrees, though questions whether people are tired of Obamamania.

Darryl is glad the U.S. election nears to a close:

In 5 days, I will no longer be writing about the US election after blogging about it since 2006. It has been a historic primary. An African-American candidate for President. Two prominent women Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton taking center stage and breaking down barriers for women. A slate of political all stars running in both primaries that included Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Joe Biden. We have seen endorsements, debates, speeches, a revolutionary internet campaign and a presidential election that really started following the last mid-term race in 2006. Millions have been raised and spent. The campaigning is basically over. The focus now for both sides must be getting out the vote on the ground, particularily in the swing states. This campaign has been exciting and turnout is going to be extremely high.

How do Wolk and Canadians feel about McCain and Obama?

Read on:

John McCain says he is running on change and that he is different from Bush. His policies are the same and his campaign has been nothing but mudslinging and negative attacks. Obama wants to build America up while McCain is focused on tearing Obama down. His low road attacks are not based in truth and his polling numbers show that Americans have rejected the recycled “liberal”, “tax and spend”, “socialist” and “weak on national security” labels that have been used in past campaigns. I have not seen one person comment about how George W. Bush has done a good job or has been a great president. People on the right and left are united in calling Bush one of the worst presidents in United States history. Unfortunately, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. It is time for real change.

Barack Obama has been tested during these past two years. He has made an immediate impact in the senate dealing with arms control and ethics. He has experience in the state legislature. His campaign has been about unity and moving America forward. He offers the change that Americans and the world are demanding. His platform (or the video last night) shows that many of his policies are no different than what Conservatives are offering in Canada. Unlike McCain, we know exactly where we stands. He is running on the economy, an area McCain admits he is not up to speed on.

As for the future, will Sarah Palin run for the presidency in 2012? Thomas Ash of British-American project openUSA ponders that intellectual question over several paragraphs, with the following conclusion and an assumption about next week's victory:

Assuming McCain loses, she is bound to attract some of the blame. Her popularity in Alaska shows signs of decreasing from its (very high) initial base, and events there may yet damage her. She will face formidable opponents, possibly including a better-funded Mike Huckabee and a re-energised Mitt Romney (whose former staffers have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, according to the American Spectator). And, awkward though it is to say so, her looks - which constitute a significant part of her appeal for some people - will begin to fade as she goes from 44 to 48.

Should Arab Americans stay away from the polls?

Will Obama occupy the White House?

And will maverick and hot mama Palin lose her looks by 2012?

Thoughts?

The pickings were slim on Thursday but that didn't prevent me from finding analysis and commentary from some of the world's best.

I begin with the Puerto Rican group blog, VivirLatino, and a posting titled, I Couldn't Agree With Them More!!!!

Responding to an earlier comment by U.S. Representative John Murtha (D-PA) who called Pennsylvania voters racists, this blog references a Fox-TV video snippet where John McCain effectively stumbles over his words and agrees with Murtha.

It doesn't get any better than this, readers.

John McCain is chocked full of total Jackass moments these days…Throwing all his truth out there like that…I feel like sending a couple tios out on the dance floor to reel drunk John off the floor and bring him home.

My second contribution comes from American neighbor Canada, where Ontario blogger Darryl Wolk summarizes a Globe and Mail newspaper story about a Gallup poll on Canadian and Mexican viewpoints on the presidential candidates. The poll indicated 67% of Canadians and a similar ratio of Mexicans favor Barack Obama (despite 63% of Mexicans who have no opinion).

In Canada and the world want Obama, Wolk writes:

…I think these numbers are positive. Obama has the tools to restore America's image in the world. Given that economic, security, climate change and issues such as Iran are going to require international cooperation; I think these numbers demonstrate that Obama has the leadership qualities to get something productive done on all these fronts. I look forward to his first trip to Canada as President. I suspect he will be greeted with a much different reception than George W. Bush has been given here in the past.

Finally, I fly to Trinidad and Tobago (via Global Voices Online), where Trinidadian blogger and military veteran Taran Rampersad highlights a John Cleese interview who describes Sarah Palin as “a nice looking parrot” and provides amazing commentary on why Obama must win:

…while everyone outside the U.S. likes the idea of living in the U.S. based on media advertising that says the United States is the land of milk and honey - people have come to terms with the fact that the milk may be sour and the honey is guarded by African killer bees.

While the United States presents a large export market for the world, the purchasing power of the United States has decreased significantly during George W. Bush's reign - the last financial disaster added more injury than the financial hemorrhage of the war and subsequent occupation of Iraq (whether you agree with it or not). It's well and good to support the troops - I do - but supporting the troops requires more than making good decisions on the ground. Supporting the troops means assuring that the troops have (1) valid reasons for being there, and (2) not throwing away the lives and quality of life of the troops for reasons that seem to simplify to oil.

The world sees all of this. Maybe it doesn't speak openly of it, and it's quite possible that it doesn't speak openly enough. But there is a change in the tone when one talks about the United States, one that doesn't necessarily even make it onto the Internet because of digital divide issues, but it's there. Linger with an American accent in some places and you'll get an earful. The wars, the ticking time bombs of mortgages, foreign policy that dictates rather than discusses… no smart person bites the hand that feeds it, but if the hand that feeds is running out of food, there is a change in that status quo. A foreign policy of preventive war (would George Washington have approved?) doesn't make friends. It makes a nervous planet.

Skipping ahead in the superb analysis is the following:

And the world, as a whole, seems more likely to support Obama. Why? He's been labeled a Muslim, when Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. He's been labeled a terrorist, in a world where an Axis of Evil is said to exist. And while he is neither, by being accused of these things he stands with the innocents who have been accused of the same things. Frankly, McCain/Palin have seemed to make Obama's international weight greater, which means he'll have greater weight in foreign policy - something Bill Clinton is/was good at but his wife may not have been very good at.

Me? I'm a veteran. I'll always support the troops because that's what veterans do - but supporting the troops doesn't mean flinging them into danger whenever rich people feel the need to become richer or the powerful seek more power. It's time that the world saw a United States that it would like to have trade and political relations with - the United States of lore.

McCain can't do that. Obama can. This election can affect the global status quo - how it is affected, because of the media and the citizen journalists, is fickle. But at the end of the day, what one has to ponder is this:

Would the world prefer to deal with McCain or Obama? The world, if you listen, is saying Obama. These are the nations and peoples that the United States trades with, makes policy with, and otherwise negotiates with. McCain has shown his politics in his campaign, smearing his opponents whenever he sees fit. Is that the person who should be handling foreign policy and reporting to the American people? I think not.

Obama has to win. Poor guy. He's working so hard for a crappy job.

What do a 29-year-old “strong conservative” Canadian, a 22-year-old “Sudanese thinker,” and an Irish-American poet from New Jersey have in common?

In the wake of the third and final U.S. presidential debate, the triumvirate form an unlikely bond and agree that Republican candidate John McCain has a lot going for him and that the election will ultimately come down to ideology.

Let's start in Ontario, Canada with the opening sentence from The Strong Conservative indicating Barack Obama is a socialist and ought to be compared to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and German revolutionary Karl Marx.

Obama's health care plan was as complicated as nuclear fusion, I have no idea who gets what or how much, except the government basically runs it. That's all I need to know.

Most important, Obama can now be known as America's Robin Hood. Taxpayers can sleep peacefully knowing that Obamessiah will happily redistribute wealth in America in an unbiased and benevolent fashion. First on the list: Acorn, followed by the now unemployed former works from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Jaime Gorelick and Frank Raines.

Skipping ahead, we read:

The more I see Obama however, the more nervous he makes me. This guy has no clue about the economy, no clue about foreign policy, and a history that no one really knows about. His entire life is veiled in secrecy and misdirection and he can't point to one single accomplishment in his life. It is frightening to think that Obama is so close to the Presidency, a man who wants to gut the military, retreat in the face of terrorists, and impose a socialistic ideology on America.

Powerful stuff from America's northern neighbor. If you're reading along, what do you think so far? This commentary goes contrary to the heart of most of Voices without Votes‘ bloggers, right? Post a comment below.

But first, we fly across the pond to sub-Saharan Africa and catch up with Drima, an Afro-Arab Sudanese Muslim and millennial blogger who states up front in The Sudanese Thinker that until recently, he never heard of Obama who he called “a no name.”

Drima backed McCain from day one and elaborates about Obama at the debate:

I liked how he sailed through McCain’s attack and question about Ayers calmly and rather eloquently like it was no big deal. On the other hand, I loved how McCain looked into the camera and started talking directly to “Joe.”

It was kinda funny, but I liked his emphasis on the importance of smaller government. His performance in this debate was better than the previous one which is ironic, since the format of the previous debate is supposed to be McCain’s favorite - town halls. During the first debate, he was the winner though.

Hmm. Drima admits a love for McCain but thinks Obama had a better start. Keep reading:

…after watching the two candidates hit each other back and forth, I’m coming out in favor of Obama but with my nose squeezed tightly.

Thing is, when the race began, I was backing McCain. I wanted to see him win. Moreover, I wanted to see Hillary [Clinton] and Rudy [Giuliani] lose, lose, lose.

Like the Canadian blogger above, you won't find many non-Americans in the blogosphere indicating a favoritism toward the Republican candidate. But here's where Drima, if presented the opportunity, wouldn't vote for McCain:

I like McCain, and I don’t have the kind of hatred many on the left have towards him, but ultimately, I believe his choice for VP was terrible. It served him well but only in the short-term. Moreover, I’m tired of seeing the lack of pressure being exerted by Elephants on Sudan to implement the CPA and settle the Darfur conflict.

If you click the above link for “The Sudanese Thinker,” you can read more of Drima's thoughts about Obama and Darfur and how McCain lacks the ideological perspective.

Which brings us back to the United States and to Michael Lally, an Irish-American blogger who agrees Obama won the debate but my focus in this summary is on the third thought of a political diatribe where Lally portrays the different sides of the U.S. political scene.

He begins:

Liberals, by definition, are humanists. They believe in equal rights, solving problems with reason and compromise, intellectual curiosity and openness, etc.

Moderates, by definition, believe in a balance, a middle way, a repudiation of ideology in favor of practicality and, obviously, moderation.

Independents can have varied beliefs, but again, they do not succumb to the ideology of either major party, though they may adhere to another ideology (libertarianism e.g.), and have never had the power of controlling any branch of our government so have no history of schemes and tactics to maintain power.

True conservatives, of which there are few these days, believe in fiscal responsibility, smaller government, personal responsibility, and generally in ideals that have been better represented by Democrats in the past several decades than Republicans (e.g. the most fiscally responsible administration in most of our lifetimes was Clinton’s, the least fiscally responsible were Reagan’s and the present one).

Rightwing Republicans, so-called neo-conservatives, the ones who have been dominant in the Republican Party since Reagan, and on the rise since Nixon, and entrenched in the past eight years in all branches of government (it continues to be one of their big lies that the Congress is controlled by Democrats for the past two years, when they know that because of the almost even split in the Senate, the Democrats cannot override Republicans in Congress to get bills passed the Bush administration objects to, etc.) have demonstrated clearly they are only interested in power.

Lally continues on a rant about Roe v. Wade, former Presidents Jimmy Carter and John F. Kennedy, and brings the conversation back to Obama:

While the most thoughtful Republicans lately have been saying they intend to vote for Obama, or at least accept that an Obama victory might be for the best and they’ll regroup and come back in four years or in the mid term Congressional elections, the more strident rightwing Republicans have been making it clear an Obama victory will be a victory for terrorism, socialism, communism and gangsterism, all legitimate targets, in their minds, for vigilantism.

Let’s hope they’re too busy dealing with their own financial problems to actually do anything extreme. But I do not put it past them.

You've read a variety of ideas here. Can you see why I picked these out as my favorites of the day? Ultimately, blogging is about ideologies and these blog posts speak to the heart of the matter. Thoughts? Post a comment below!

The race to the White House also includes Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party, Cynthia McKinney of the Green-Rainbow Party, and Ralph Nader of the Independent Party.

You can read more about the six men and women (and their running mates) at Project Vote Smart.

Because of little attention paid to the third-party candidates in the mainstream media (where most of the world's bloggers get their information), there is little discussion in the blogosphere. But some content is worth repeating here.

We begin with last month's article on Global Voices Online by Pakistani blogger Teeth Maestro about his peers' reactions to the first presidential debate. Buried in the responses was this comment:

To be an effective leader one must also display honesty, compassion, & guts. Stand with Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, & Cynthia McKinney.

Of course, Ron Paul is no longer running in the election; Wikipedia has the facts, namely that Paul withdrew from the Republican Party before announcing his support for Chuck Baldwin.

The essence of the anonymous commenter's words remain valuable; that independent candidates hold as much worth as the Democratic and Republican parties.

This is echoed by Marcy Newman, an American blogger known for her pro-Palestinian activism, who writes in the first sentence of a Sarah Palin commentary:

This rant on Palin does not mean I support Obama/Biden. I don’t because on foreign policy they are one in the same. I support Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney.

Unfortunately, as Michael Merritt of PoliGazette recently remarked in the wake of Bob Barr attempting to remove Obama and McCain from the Texas ballot for failing to submit their nomination sheets by the deadline…

Libertarians and other third parties have always typically found obstacles to ballot access, usually the ridiculous numbers of signatures needed to even get on the ballot. Even then, they are often challenged on the veracity of these signatures.

Coming full circle, we turn to the United Kingdom and former Liberal Democrat Councilor Nich Starling who blogged about Pravda on Democracy in America. He begins with the following:

The comedy news channel Russia Today is always worth watching for five minutes if you need to be reminded how good CNN, Sky News, BBC or even Fox News is.

The story Russia Today is running with today is how undemocratic the US is for not giving Ralph Nader equal coverage with Obama and McCain, with the under current of the story being that the US is not a good democracy because it does not allow candidates equal access to the news media.

It is fair to presume that none of the independent candidates will work in the corner office, so where's the harm in writing more stories on the voices who won't win the votes?

How will Palin, the Republican candidate, redeem herself after the world's reporters and bloggers mocked her for saying her foreign policy experience stems from the proximity of her home state to Russia?

By means of background, here's an extract of her notorious interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric:

When asked if she was involved in any negotiations with Russia, Palin responded:

We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

Tim Sparks of German-American blog Across the Pond, like other global bloggers, had seen the video and read other press about Palin's lack of experience. He writes that Palin may be in for a shock:

Things beside experience – like judgment – matter when it comes to foreign policy. And yet, it’s hard to deny that Biden gets some kind of advantage from having met and talked with these foreign leaders in a way that Palin never has.

In a rant about “white privilege” on a Canadian blog called a boy named sue is the following opinion:

…if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives close to Russia - you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

Daniel Andersson, a 23-year-old Swedish blogger who has traveled to many nations, is astonished:

She actually claimed that seeing the Russian border from Alaska was a qualification of foreign experience in her CV. She got her first passport one year ago, myself who have been to China, Russia, Canada, US as well as Israel, seem in some way to be more qualified than her.

As to whether Palin's Alaskan home was close enough to see Russia, Erik Rasmussen, an American living in the northern Spain community of Colindres, uses a geometric “Distance to Horizon Calculator” to determine Palin would have to jump 101 kilometers (or 63 miles) into the air to see Russia from her Wasilla home.

Rasmussen summarizes:

…an astronaut in the Space Shuttle passing directly over Wasilla could definitely see Russia as well, but no one down in the atmosphere that allows aeronautical flight could.

For a British perspective, it's worth reading the words of Karl Smythe, a blogger with OpenUSA, part of the open Democracy project, who opines:

Tonight has become very much a referendum on Palin herself: finally free from the straightjacket of her media handlers, if she fails to sufficiently replicate the energy, conviction and, most importantly, clarity of her coming-out speech at the Republican National Convention and appease concerns over her recent missteps, this debate may ultimately prove a far more damaging blow to John McCain's Oval Office aspirations than his mishandling last week of the congressional deliberation on the $700 financial bailout package.

Relegated to the fringes of electoral coverage since his unveiling in Denver, Biden now has an important and delicate role to play. Faced with the challenge of debating a female opponent with exceptionally low levels of expectation, Biden must shun his infamously verbose and long-winded style of rhetoric to match Palin's snappy sound bytes while finding an appropriate tone on the night with which to underscore the frailties of his opponent. But he must not come across as domineering, patriarchal, snide or misogynistic - a balancing act that George H.W. Bush found difficult when facing Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.

Finally, Margot the Marrakesh Mystic of Morocco explores what Chinese astrology says about Palin.

Here is a sampling of Margot's interpretation of Water Rabbits and Wood Dragons, both of which apply to Palin:

…an excellent memory…attract many supporters who rally to their defense when they least expect it. They can rally powerful allies to their aid, and are never without resources or influence so long as they do not carry their neutrality so far that no one will take their side…a fragile and emotional nature, and cannot bear harassment or dissent…easily influenced…not very decisive and can come under the sway of others…adept at formulating and implementing their ideas and working cooperatively with others, even if condescending on occasion…outspoken, proud, and fearless when challenged.

Starting with foreign policy reactions from Pakistan, let's recall what Barack Obama and John McCain said:

Obama: “…every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense [Robert] Gates acknowledged the central front…is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan….If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.”

McCain: “I'm not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan…We've got to get the support of the people of Pakistan….And we're going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. And it's going to be tough. They've intermarried with al Qaeda and the Taliban. And it's going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas.”

Pakistani reaction in the eastern hemisphere is diverse.

Beginning with Riaz Haq, McCain is the winner on foreign policy:

It is clear that Senator McCain is far more knowledgeable about Pakistan than Senator Obama. Mr. McCain has also repeatedly stressed diplomacy and close working relationship with Pakistan and demonstrated his commitment by his actions such as several visits and phone conversations with Pakistani leadership recently and in the past. On the other hand, Mr. Obama has made aggressive statements about Pakistan without making serious effort to understand the issues faced by Pakistanis in FATA.

The most oft-repeated phrase by Senator McCain was “I don’t think Sen Obama understands,” while Obama repeated “I agree with John” more often than any other phrase. Just these two phrases capture the essence of the tone of the debate on foreign policy.

At Teeth Maestro, Dr. Awab Alvi, a Pakistani dentist, suggests Obama won the debate:

I must admit that apart from picking apart a few statements from within the debate, I do not come forth with a clear victor in regards to the issues of Pakistan. Only in an attempt to bring this presidential debate into a wider perspective for the people in Pakistan, one just feels there is a desperate need for change. McCain may actually be attempting to catapult himself as a new face into the White House, proposing a few new ideas, roughly the same approach, and bustling with a hot-looking VP at his side, but at 74 he seems a bit too weary and tired, definitely lacking the vision and dynamism to confront the challenges of the 21st century and its surmounting problems not only limited to the US of A but the greater impact of the US muscle on the entire world. If Bush’s eight years were something to look at as an extension for McCain then I strongly suspect Pakistan will not outlive his four year term.

And from the voices behind CHUP! - Changing Up Pakistan, neither man won the debate, citing the irrelevancy of talking about Pakistan without being there:

If Coalition forces are being killed by militants in cross-border attacks, it inherently threatens U.S. security; that would be true for any country. The difference in this presidential election is that Obama openly acknowleges this reality, while McCain merely chooses to equate it to an attack on Pakistani sovereignty. Ultimately, however, there isn’t an easy answer to this issue, and the next president will be forced to respond to the realities on the ground.

Other than global reactions to foreign policy, the blogosphere is fairly quiet, with a general tone that the debate lacked luster and was boring.

Staying up for two hours in Shopshire county in the United Kingdom, British blogger Colin Drowse composed random thoughts with the subject that the debate made him tired:

I stayed up till 3.30 last night to see the debate and I was disappointed. Obama was fluent and McCain dithered. Not much passion but what did I expect. Will not stay up for the debates to come unless there is a whiff of something special. Hell of an ordeal and I am sure that Palin will whither.

Michael van der Galien of PoliGazette in the Netherlands agreed:

Reading on last night’s debate, and watching clips of it, I cannot help but wonder why debates are held in the first place.

Both men are no (longer) rookies. They’ve been drilled perfectly. Obama was not a great debater when he started to run for president, but he had to do so many debates during the Democratic primary season that he would be a very slow study indeed if he would still come across as a man incapable of responding directly to questions instead of merely giving a great speech.

McCain, of course, is a man with a long career in politics. If he’s not able to debate, and to repeat the standard talking points, he has no business running for president in the first place.

One could surmise van der Galien would find a healthy debate in the mind of Portuguese blogger AG, who enjoyed listening to Obama:

A escolha ficou mais acessível para quem hesita ainda: quem quiser mais de Bush, em versão primeiro mandato, vota McCain. Quem quiser mudar de políticas e procurar melhorar a economia da America e a sua posição no mundo, vota Obama.

The choice became more accessible for those who still hesitate: those who want more of Bush, in the first mandate version, vote McCain. Anyone who wants changes in policies and seek to improve the economy of America and its position in the world, vote Obama.

Canadian blogger Kevin Brennan wrote steadily throughout the debate and humorously opined these wise words:

I can understand how McCain would know that the [Pakistani] border areas haven't been effectively governed since the days of Alexander the Great, since he marched with Alexander's armies.

…Obama just got in a good comment about McCain not wanting to meet with the Prime Minister of Spain. I think McCain came close to losing his temper.

Brazilian blogger Eduardo Guimarães suggests Obama may have won the debate, but muses if Americans will agree with him:

Não sei quem venceu o debate para o conjunto do eleitorado americano porque não consigo pensar como pensa essa fatia maluca e racista daquela sociedade. Mas se vocês quiserem saber como acho que os americanos mentalmente sadios viram o debate entre Obama e McCain, acho que deram vitória para o democrata. Resta saber, porém, quantos são os americanos mentalmente sadios.

I do not know who won the debate for the entire American electorate because I can not think how this crazy and racist slice of society thinks. But if you want to know how I think that mentally healthy Americans saw the debate between Obama and McCain, I think that they give victory to the Democrats. The question is, however, how many Americans are mentally healthy.

Considering pictures speak 1,000 words, perhaps Iranian blogger Saeed Ebadzadeh Mosadegh captured the debate best by displaying three pictures.

What do you think? Are there any viewpoints here that you agree or disagree with?