A panel of SF State International Relations professors joined with students in Jack Adams Hall last Wednesday evening after the final presidential debate to discuss the candidates, their challenges and make a few predictions about Election Day.

“It’s an opportunity for the students to see the faculty and degree of expertise,” said co-facilitator Kathryn Johnson, Coordinator for Special Projects with the college of Behavioral and Social Science. “It’s part of our public service mission.”

The panel was planned to coincide with the initial topic scheduled for the final debate: U.S. Foreign Policy, however the debate topic was switched over to U.S. economic issues; nevertheless the panel made due.

“This is raw expert analysis…You have the best in San Francisco,” said Political Science Grad Student Nick Occhipinti, 28. “Getting that perspective is more important to me… than the way it’s focused on in the news by pundits…or spin-doctors.”

A member of the panel and diplomat in residence for the department of international relations, David Fischer, focused his talk on the personalities of the candidate’s potential cabinets and some of their notable histories and how that may influence new challenges in U.S. foreign policy.

He brought up some challenges that the candidates will be facing, according to his expertise, including the possibility that “the United States may not take the leadership role.”

But what was perhaps most notable was his bold prediction for Election night, “I think it will be a short sweet evening.” He predicts over 300 electoral votes for Obama by 5:30 PST.

The evening’s panel also included Professor of International Relations Sanjoy Banerjee, who discussed his view on how national identity has guided U.S. foreign policy and how a three-part formula of contemporary American heritage, destiny and vanguard may also continue to influence the policies of the next administration.

A McCain administration, he noted, that harbors a neo-conservative cabinet with notable names such as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney as his side, would probably be a better indicator of tactic than the noticeable winding down of hard-line talk in the evenings debate. As for an Obama administration, “a much more domestically centered” focus is predicted.

Assistant Professor of International Relations Amy Skonieczny discussed the narratives used by the candidates in forming their public identities and how the narratives can indicate what they want to project and how they think about their audience as they assemble their storylines.

“She made a good point on each candidate trying to sell their story to the American people,” said International Relations student Maya Fallaha, 23. “She clarified points on what we should look at.”

Many showed up early to watch the debate, but the seats filled fastest when crowds entered as the candidates finished their final questions and closing statements and the forum was about to begin.

“The debate justifies why we need a course like this,” said Dean of the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Co-facilitator, Joel Kassiola. “I thought the questions were far more incisive…pointed…hard hitting. But I think the answers were standard stump speeches.”

The event is part of a 14-week series of free public lectures being offered as a course by the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences, analyzing the 2008 presidential election and its top issues.