Skip to content
Categories:

Back to back at Saddleback

Post date:
Author:

At first blush, the setting seemed unfavorable to both Barack Obama and John McCain — an evangelical megachurch hosting the first major candidate forum of the presidential campaign.

For Obama, the goal was to impress a largely-skeptical audience of conservative evangelicals that he is a man of strong values and Christian faith, and that there are areas of common ground between them. For McCain, the goal was to remind the evangelical audience that they’re really on the same page when it comes to social issues, notwithstanding his denunciation of the religious right eight years ago.

What we saw last night from the Rev. Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church was both candidates doing what they set out to do. It was a success for Obama and McCain, for entirely different reasons.

Obama, arguably, had the tougher task, winning over a largely-conservative evangelical audience in the Republican stronghold of Orange County. Granted, Saddleback isn’t as hard-line as say, the chapel at Regent University, but only in that Warren has expanded the repertoire of “Christian issues” — his church opposes gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research, but it’s also concerned about Darfur, war, poverty, and the environment.

We saw pretty quickly that Obama’s years of working in churches left him exceedingly comfortable talking to a pastor about issues in a spiritual context. Salon’s Mike Madden noted:

One of the candidates for president strolled onto the stage at a massive megachurch in suburban Orange County Saturday night and started joking easily with the Rev. Rick Warren, maybe the most popular evangelical leader in America — but just plain “Pastor Rick” to the candidate. He talked about his certainty that “Jesus Christ died for my sins, and I am redeemed through him,” said Americans should be soldiers in the fight against evil and defined marriage as between a man and a woman — “and God is in the mix.” This particular Christian candidate was so on his game that after a segment on domestic policy ended, Warren told him — his mic still live as the TV feed cut to commercial — “Home run.”

Oh, and John McCain was there, too.

What about the social issues? I thought Obama did a nice job of threading the needle — he didn’t back away from what are ostensibly liberal positions, describing himself as pro-choice and expressing his support for civil unions, but characterized them in ways that sound palatable by an evangelical audience, such an emphasis on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

But by any reasonable measure, McCain had a very good night, too.

I heard from quite a few people who seemed surprised that McCain seemed so comfortable and articulate. It’s probably a good time to remind those of us who hope McCain loses in November how very good McCain is in these settings. McCain is about as comfortable doing a Q&A as Michael Phelps is in the water.

McCain runs into a quite a bit of trouble as a candidate when he has to talk about policy details and specifics, which generally leaves him sounding incoherent and confused. But last night was the polar opposite — a relaxed setting with a friendly audience in one of the most-reliably Republican areas in the county

, talking to a pastor who had no interest in “gotcha” questions, asking tough ones like, “When does life begin?” (McCain’s answer, “At the moment of conception,” was what Warren and the audience wanted to hear.)

Most of the analysis I’ve seen concluded that McCain “won” the night. Perhaps. He certainly excelled in making the forum a typical campaign event, telling the same jokes we’ve heard a million times, repeating lines from his stump speech verbatim, relating every question to either a) his prepared campaign talking points (biggest reversal? coastal drilling, natch); or b) his background as a P.O.W. in Vietnam. McCain scored by telling the audience precisely what it wanted to hear on everything from marriage to vouchers to unions.

Watching the event, I made a note after Obama was done: “thoughtful leader.” When McCain wrapped up, I wrote: “skilled politician.”

It wasn’t really a level playing field, though. Obama had to try to win over evangelicals, while McCain had to keep them. With that in mind, Noam Scheiber recommends grading on a curve.

I just saw CBN’s David Brody proclaim McCain the winner of tonight’s joint appearance at Saddleback Church, saying (essentially) that McCain hit it out of the park. I didn’t think McCain did as well as Brody did–a lot of his answers sounded pretty stilted and canned, like obviously recycled stump shtick. But, even if you did think McCain was objectively better than Obama, that’s the wrong way to think about winners and losers in a forum like this. You’ve got to grade on the curve.

The audience, after all, was primarily evangelical Christians–a group among whom McCain leads by better than 2 to 1, according to recent polls. That means that if McCain did any worse than twice as well as Obama, it counts as a win for Obama. And, from where I sit, McCain didn’t come close to doing twice as well. My sense is that Obama struck a lot of previously skeptical evangelicals as a reasonable and God-fearing man (a real achievement given that so many of the questions touched on issues that favor Republicans among these voters–abortion, judges, stem cell research, etc.). That’s a big improvement in light of where Obama started.

Realistically, I’m not sure how much last night mattered. A two-hour event, up against the Olympics, on a Saturday night in August — not exactly a recipe for a ratings bonanza.

That said, I suspect both candidates left feeling pretty good about their performances. What’d you think?

Comments

  • neil wilson

    says:

    I was disappointed that McCain showed far less understanding of the Bible than Obama showed. However, it seems like McCain’s ignorance is being overlooked by everyone.

  • wvng

    says:

    Swampland had quite an interesting comment thread about this last night. I made the following comment somewhere in the middle of a long and very interesting discussion, in response to a bunch of gnashing of teeth and wailing over how McBush won over the crowd with mindless platitudes: (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/08/rick_warren_preview.html#comments) :

    I thought Obama did fine. He honestly answered the questions that were presented to him, and didn’t try to pander to the crowd’s likely biases.

    McCain was charming and effortlessly pandering, but the second time he started to tell the story of being a POW (which, of course, he doesn’t like to mention) I knew how he was going to handle the rest and turned it off. Maybe that wasn’t balanced of me to turn McCain off, maybe I just “Gotta Keep My Sense Of Humor.”

    Obama didn’t lose a thing on the merits, should have gained by being acknowledged as Christian in a Christian setting while describing actual Christian behavior (vs Christianist behavior) as guiding his approach to life, but we’ll see what happens as the media spins it.

    Clearly I didn’t see the same discussion that RD (a reflexive RW ideologue) saw. Perhaps I opened my eyes.

  • Scott R

    says:

    I thought the real difference between Obama and McCain was all the “ughs” and “w-w-w-whats.” If you watched carefully, McCain doesn’t “ugh”, whereas Obama does is constantly. It makes McCain sound more clear and lucid compared to Obama, even when the content of what he is saying is fuzzy. Hopefully, this is something that Obama will work on because all his answers were great, probably even better than McCains. But McCain won the night because he sounded better, not because what he said was clearer or more concise.

  • Badass4Peace

    says:

    CB, I can’t think exactly of the right group right considering the polylithic nature of “The Left” but imagine McCain having to answer questions in front of The Left’s equivalent of an evangelical, wealthy megachurch… the ACLU? Antiwar groups? Unions?

    Actually forget it. It’s pointless to equivocate the religious right with reality-based organizations on the other side. The world isn’t linear. (unless you’re a member of the Flat Earth Society)

  • SteveT

    says:

    I was amazed that McCain did so well. After watching him on the campaign trail over the past few months, I was surprised at how well prepared he was. If last night’s event was the only thing people see other than commercials, then McCain would win in November.

    This wasn’t a good format for Obama. He sounded thoughtful and nuanced like always — just what _I_ want in a president. But a few pandering, but dogmatic, declarations from McCain made Obama look weak and over-intellectual by comparison to the low information voters. McCain’s assertion that he wants to cut everyone’s taxes sounds great when no one points out that he plans to cut taxes by 3.5 trillion dollars and has only talked about budget cuts of $28 billion.

    The formal debates aren’t going to be much better for Obama. The inane questions from the corporate-controlled media’s “journalists” won’t show Obama at his best and won’t demonstrate McCain’s lack of depth and substance. The follow up questions by the “jounalists” will be equally superficial rather than probative.

    Obama needs to get McCain one-on-one. No moderator. No panel. No audience questions. Just a back-and-forth that digs into the substance of issues and gives Obama a chance to challenge McCain when he is offering platitudes or is just plain wrong on facts.

  • JS

    says:

    I agree McCain did well last night, especially when he answered questions that had not yet been asked, he seemed to anticipate every question. Totally out of his norm when he has to have 5 minutes to answer a simple question from a reporter. Could it be that he was given the questions in advance, or perhaps was listening to Obama’s answers?

  • JoeW

    says:

    I was out so I only caught the last 5 ~ 10 minutes from Obama. I gave McCain 20 minutes til I could take no more. It obviously favored McCain in both forum and format. But still he sounded like he was ticking off a shopping list. Pro-life. POW. Anti-liberal. POW, Drill baby, drill, POW. More nutjobs on the Supreme court. POW.
    What struck me was that Obama didn’t have to ‘win’ to get the better of the night. All he had to do was inoculate himself from the present and looming repub smears. I’m not saying we’ve heard the last of he’s a Muslim, or a radical leftist. But from what I saw, he let a lot of air out of those balloons.

  • TwoSheds

    says:

    How does everyone keep thinking McCain did so well? His answers were short rehashes of stump points and conservative codewords. He avoided every question and continually digressed into long-winded anecdotes that would appear germane to only the most solidly partisan Republicans.

    I get so frustrated with McCain’s lies about his record and his complete lack of governing philosophy that it’s to the point now that I can’t even watch him on TV without reaching for a bottle of scotch. If I develop cirrhosis, I’m suing the McCain 2008 campaign for all it’s worth…

  • jhm

    says:

    I think this is right. We’re dealing with an audience which includes Dem-leaning voters who’ve been told Hon. Sen. Obama is a muslim. With a bar that low, the potential upside from even a mediocre performance is substantail.

  • NDR

    says:

    I am disappointed that we haven’t been asking what was learned about the faiths of McCain and Obama. Honestly, I found McCain’s Christianity wanting. He sees the flag first, and that seems to be his true religion. Conversely, Obama seemed steeped in Christianity.

  • PeteCO

    says:

    The only thing that made me sit up was McBush’s statement that life begins at conception. He didn’t hesitate, came right out with it.

    My question is; Is this really a mainstream position?

  • hark

    says:

    I didn’t watch it. I caught the Yahoo news headline this morning, which contrasted their views of a zygote, and didn’t bother reading the article. I thought I had a pretty good idea of who won and who lost.

    And from the comments so far, I suspect McCain won big to most of the American people. We have to remember that we liberals constitute a tiny minority in this country. I see a common theme running throughout this campaign – taxes are inherently bad, everybody deserves a tax break, and that’s scary, because what that really means is government is no damn good and every cent sent to them is a complete waste. How do we compete against that? Government is still evil, and ironically, the lesson learned from the Bush administration’s eight destructive years is that government is a hell of a lot worse than Reagan said it was. And it is, after they got done with it.

    This is going to be tough. Thank God the Olympics were on last night.

    Imagine a country in which the only litmus test for president is whether or not a candidate believes a zygote is a baby or not. To tens of millions of Americans it is.
    How did we come to this?

  • PeteCO

    says:

    SteveT @ #6 says “The formal debates aren’t going to be much better for Obama.”

    I disagree. Even given the sympathetic treatment the Village Idiots will favour McBush with, I think Obama will show McBush up big time. Last night’s format was very different, Obama was working on coming across as considered and thoughtful. He was introducing himself to an audience who aren’t familiar with him.

    In a debate format we should see a fine legal mind take McBush, (a lifelong backroom boy and lobbyist lackey) apart.

    I do like your idea of a one-on-one cage match though. That would kick @ss.

  • Ahcuah

    says:

    “When does life begin” is one of those questions like “When did you stop beating your wife.” It’s based on a false pretense intended to dictate the answer.

    Because in truth, life began a few billion years ago and has been constantly re-arranging itself ever since. And animal life keeps switching between monoploid and diploid forms repeatedly.

    The more relevant and correct question is “When should human life, in its various forms, be dictated by others?”

  • danimal

    says:

    McCain did well and will improve his standing amongst Orange County evangelical conservatives. It’s amazing that he is still fighting for that constituency. Obama didn’t hurt himself and helped dispel some of the rumors and swill that has been accumulating.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    I discussed this on last night’s open thread, but I will repeat that I thought that it was nothing like any of us had expected, that it was an excellent, serious discussion of issues — hosted by a ‘pastor’ yes, but not about religion (in fact, I’ll repeat again that Warren’s handling of the joint interviews should have made every Sunday Morning Host tremble for their jobs — this is the type of questioning that they should be doing). On the ‘who won’ question, it was close to a tie — which surprised me. McCain was comfortable in the setting and Obama did ‘uhhh’ too much. McCain gave simple answers — and there was too much ‘a noun, a verb, and POW’ — and Obama’s responses were more thoughtful. Obama spoke to the concerns of people directly, McCain spoke in generalities for the most part. On the other hand, the ‘drilling’ question may be nonsense, but, as i explained more last night, people who are desperate don’t like hearing that the quick fix they are offered is wrong. It is the one issue which McCain is winning on, and it scares me a little.

    But the comments McCain made on abortion and on the Supreme Court will scare the hell out of a lot of Independents who are pro-choice and the American people have always been consistently pro-choice, the anti-abortionists just make more noise and are more likely to be ‘one-issue voters.’ I think the reason this hasn’t been as much of a factor in the past is that most people have seen the Republicans play to the anti-abortion crowd but never actually do anything, so they vote on other issues. This might not be true this time, and I hope it isn’t.

    Oh, and a number of people suggested last night that McCain seemed to have the questions in advance. If this was true, and I’m not sure it was, I doubt it was the fault of Warren, nor was the ‘earpiece’ idea such a good one. But McCain almost taunted Warren with his POW story — “we weren’t supposed to communicate with each other, but of course we did.”

    It’s been a long time since people used ‘Morse code’ regularly, but McCain’s old enough that I’m sure he knows it well. Could that have been the answer? If Ricj Davis or Nurse Cindy was tapping a pencil as they pretended to write, they could have communicated the questions easily, and nobody much younger than I am would have been suspicious.

    Anyway, kudos to Warren, to both candidates, and to the entire program, which may have been the most adult campaign event I’ve seen in my lifetime.

  • commonsense

    says:

    I think that Obama blew it away from the teleprompter and MCCain easily won that night. As far as a comment about how well McCain would do at a ACLU convention vs Obama at a conservative Mega church. The difference is that conservatives are respectful and listen quietly to those they disagree whereas at the lefts events, some smelly liberal green peace antiwar hippy would throw stuff at the speaker or heckle loudly in the stands etc at the conservative.

  • joepa

    says:

    The ‘above my pay grade’ answer was very bad.
    A constitutional scholar and a Christian should certainly be able to answer this question instead of dodging it in such an obvious way. The answer looks even worse because it was a question Obama fully expected and for which he should have been prepared during his whole week off in Hawaii.
    As Ahcuah shows you can take the question to a deeper level or you can simply say that you don’t believe that a zygote can be considered morally equivalent to a viable baby.
    But any thoughtful person who wants to intellectually discuss this issue has to start out with an answer to that question.
    To deflect the question with a non-answer that underscores his lack of experience was an obvious dodge that didn’t come off well.

  • SteveT

    says:

    PeteCO said:
    SteveT @ #6 says “The formal debates aren’t going to be much better for Obama.”

    I disagree. Even given the sympathetic treatment the Village Idiots will favour McBush with, I think Obama will show McBush up big time. . . .
    In a debate format we should see a fine legal mind take McBush, (a lifelong backroom boy and lobbyist lackey) apart.

    Not if Obama has to answer idiotic questions from the panel of “journalists” like:

    “Why don’t you always wear a flag pin on your lapel? Aren’t you proud of what the flag stands for?”

    “Do you think your opponent loves his country?”

    “How are you going to win over the disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters?”

    And I’m sure you can think of others. Obama’s fine legal mind only shines through if he answers questions of depth and substance. And even then if he only has 90 seconds to answer and 30 seconds for rebuttal, thoughtfulness looks like weakness.

    Republicans excel at debates where the answers have to fit on bumper stickers.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    hark:

    Government is NOT evil.

    How can someone who frequently posts some very intelligent comments here so readily parrot the Limbaugh line, the Republican philosophy? Government may have some evil people occasionally getting power (McCarthy, Nixon, Bush, Cheney), sure. But it is ‘Government’ that
    builds roads and schools
    pays unemployment, disability, and Social Security
    still — despite Bush — works to eliminate discrimination
    creates courts and police forces
    does act in some situations to attack evils in the world
    still — again despite Bush and the Republicans — limits the powers of corporations
    keeps farmers from being subject to the vagaries of the weather by institutig various agricultural programs that ;evel out the years
    etc. etc.

    There has been a lot of loose talk about ‘fascism’ here that I’ve only recently decided to push back against — but every fascist system (the ones that gained power and the ones like Codreanu, Szelaszi, and Mosely that didn’t) has, as one of its initial premises that
    “government is evil.” That’s the way they convince people to act on their own to overthrow it and put into power someone who — rather than being elected in the messy system of Democracy — embodies the ‘true Spirit of the People!’

    (Communism, particularly Leninism, argued differently. For their purposes, people were fools and what was needed was a ‘vanguard party’ who truly understood how the system worked and could seize power and once in power, ‘educate’ the people into seeing what the ‘scientific study of history made plain’ — and that didn’t work out so well either.)

    I’m a Democrat — but I am also a democrat, and for good reason.

    Democracy works.

    (And to answer someone who argued that ‘well, socialism is still alive in Europe,’ that person should learn the difference between ‘socialism’ and ‘social democracy’ — which I also support.)

  • Coop

    says:

    Last night’s “loser” was Rick Warren. He enjoys quite a reputation as an evangelical who is not close-minded and mean-spirited: the evangelical even a liberal can like. But last night he allowed John McCain to dodge questions and replace substance with meaningless chest-thumping brags: he’s going to defeat evil? He’s going to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell? Warren totally lost control of the “event”.

  • selenafan

    says:

    What was McCain’s biggest failure? Well, it wasn’t just the “failure of my marriage,” as he vaguely put it. It was his coming home and not liking that his wife had become crippled and was not as beautiful as he liked them. Therefore, he felt justified in starting an affair with Cindy, The Other Woman, so he asked wife #1 for a divorce because Cindy was not only a blonde babe, but she was an heiress. He’s been living off Cindy (the C**t as he called her) ever since. His moral failure, then, was his infidelity and his preference for money over his marriage vows.

  • jmg

    says:

    I’ll be interested to see how McCain’s pledge to defeat evil plays out. Talk about messianic. The question was clearly dealing with the concept of evil in theological terms, yet McCain either missed this or chose to answer in simplistic terms. I spent a decade in a conservative church growing up, and this answer struck me as utterly inane, although I can’t really vouch for how others with a more pro-McCain bias would interpret it.

    As far as how a head to head match up might play out, I hope that Obama will fair much better. McCain threw out so many whoppers last night (and during this whole campaign) without any rebuttal that I don’t know how he would respond when confronted with some push back directly. I think that he would become peevish, and I would at least hope that the media could then verify which set of claims is true. A guy can dream, right?

  • olo

    says:

    I don’t know, if BO’s christianist pandering at the “mega church” last night is enough to guarantee a repOilican win in Nov, but it’s a pretty good step in that direction.

    Add to it, dropping Clark in the river and the election is closer to the toilet than ever. http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/08/obama_to_genera/

    But if BO is really serious about handing the election to McBush in Nov, he ought to take the advice of Michael Moore from in his recent article: “How The Democrats Can Blow It …In Six Easy Steps” @ http://www.michaelmoore.com/must…dex.php? id=1036

  • olo

    says:

    Speaking of error 404, I am reminded of McBrain’s memory lapses.
    How many 404 pages reside in that gob of gray mush between his ears?

    This particular error occurs if a destination page has been removed or the link becomes corrupted and points to the wrong destination or a non-existent place.
    In McBrain’s case there is ample evidence many pages in his cortex have simply vanished and that many of his linking neurons simply open the wrong page or point to nowhere at all.

    His all too frequent denials that he said or did something that a zillion folks have seen/heard on youtube and elsewhere, offer moor proof of this than can be justified by the McLame excuses from his enablers & apologists.

  • Rita

    says:

    Wow! Can’t believe some of what I’m reading…

    I was blown away by McCain in comparison to Obama whose “conversational style” avoided given any direct answers for most of the questions he was asked. I thought he behaved more like a “politician”.

    I was thrilled with McCain because it’s so refreshing to hear a politician actually answering questions with definitive answers instead of trying to avoid direct answers for fear of angering special interest groups!

    McCain won the night and I’m shocked at some of the interpretations!

  • doubtful

    says:

    Looks like we got a lot of McCainiacs on board today trying to save up enough points for a mustache comb.

  • Bey

    says:

    Rita @30,

    I beg to differ. Obama for the most part gave direct answers. He just didn’t give simple ones. And his final answer, when asked what he would say if there were no possible repercussions, summed it up perfectly: we are going to have to make some changes in order to make this nation a better place for our grandchildren. Some of those changes are going to hurt, but our grandparents did it for us in WW2 and the depression. We can, and should, do it for those who follow.

    McCain sounded confident and direct because he offered only simple answers to complex questions, and offered talking points instead of thoughts.

  • Keori

    says:

    @32,

    As big of an asshole as I think Christopher Hitchens is, his last book “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything” was spot on. I am sick to effin’ death of other people’s ideas of religion, morality, and their Imaginary Friend in the Sky dictating how I live my life as a law-abiding, tax-paying American citizen when NOTHING I do is a threat to anyone.

  • Sandra

    says:

    In regard to McCain seeming to know the questions: these were evangelical conservative questions that McCain may have heard over and over ( in his townhall meetings?). Illustration of this – I logged on to a very conservative thread following the event. When Obama answered the question about evil the conservative thread said “He didn’t mention Al Quaeda!” McCain’s answer? Al Quaeda!I
    In regard to his “cross in the sand” story-what on earth does that say about HIS Christian belief? It is about a Christian Vietnamese. This counts as an answer?
    His moral problem when offered early release as a POW? He could not take this offer under any circumstances as it would have destroyed his already checkered career and his father would have disowned him. No choice, no problem.

  • VW

    says:

    Wow, Im more convinced than ever before, that oBuMa hates America.He s We are in trouble if he is elected. Go McCain Go.

  • Cee Jay

    says:

    Another election year and the voters are getting sucked in again by pandering to the social issues so important to the evangelicals. But the fact is, the president will be able to do little to stop same sex marriage, abortion and stem cell research. These are smoke screens to keep people from discussing the true threats to our freedom and our way of life.
    I was surprised to see that Ross Perot is still trying to get us to wake up. We need to remember that our founding fathers did not agree on moral issues, but they were well aware that ,” If we do not hang together, we shall hang separately.” They made some nasty compromises in the present to make the future possible.

  • HappyinTexas

    says:

    I thought that both candidaes avoided making mistakes last night. I didn’t appreciate Obama answereing every question with “As a Christian…” since he was obvioulsy trying to pander to the audience. I though McCain laid out a good case about taxes. They are too high for everyone and the gov’t gets too much money and pisses it away on BS pork barrel programs. Obama thinks that more money to the gov’t would solve everything.

  • libra

    says:

    I was thrilled with McCain because it’s so refreshing to hear a politician actually answering questions with definitive answers instead of trying to avoid direct answers for fear of angering special interest groups! — Rita, @30

    And there you have it. That’s how majority of people will view the debates too, even if the questions aren’t totally trivial and inane. Obama is thoughtful and tries to be precise — which comes through as too much “embroidery” or, even, as trying to avoid a straight answer. His “professorial” habit of letting the audience to arrive at a conclusion (ie leading to it, rather than delivering it ex cathedra) isn’t helpful in such a setting, either.

    McCain was concise. It makes no difference whether he told the truth or not — most people won’t know enough of the background facts to judge. He didn’t bother with either big ideas or big words — custom made for the audience which isn’t used to Harvard Law debates.

    I watched the Kerry-Bush debates and it was the same thing; Kerry’s answers were better content-wise, but you had to dig into them, like inside a walnut, to extract the “meat” of them. He came through like an Ivory Tower nerd, who didn’t even know his own mind, because it was too convoluted to keep track of his thought paths. Bush kept repeating a few catchy phrases till I was ready to puke, but he came through as a simple, likable guy. “Just like us”.

    Bush’s and McCain’s brains are, probably, as smooth as billiard balls. Kerry’s and Obama’s have far too many folds for most people to accept.

  • Valorie

    says:

    Both McCain and Obama are good and decent men. In response to the questions, I could see Obama concentrating and formulating his response. He spoke clearly and broadly. However, McCain answered the questions before they were asked leaving many to suggest he knew the questions before hand. I pray that is not the case. McCain “shot from the hip” and, in many cases, told a story and did not directly respond. This is too much like the incompent George Bush. I want a president who is intelligent, clear-thinking, sees the whole picture and carefully, very carefully makes his decisions. This Independent’s vote goes to Obama.
    Grandma from Raleigh

  • Rita

    says:

    In response to Libra, I’m Rita @30 and I’m an educated Database
    Administrator at a Fortune 500 company and although you are correct in that I don’t particularly enjoy Harvard law debates, rest assured that I am perfectly capable of understanding them.

    With all due respect, I stand by my original comments and hope the majority of Americans understand that we must select a leader whose priority is national security, or I’m afraid the economy, healthcare, human rights violations & gay marriage (among a million other issues) will be IRRELEVANT.

    If I were Putin or Ahmadinejad, I can guarantee that I would prefer to face Obama as head of the U.S over McCain.

    I don’t feel Obama has the experience or the decisiveness needed to lead this country after hearing last night’s pseudo-debate.

    Rita

  • Daniel

    says:

    Written like a true clear thinking American voter Valorie. I wish more people thought lke you, the world be a much safer place. Unfortunately, it is not, and natural selection is taking its course. Too bad the people who think like us have fewer and fewer children, and its oftentimes the people who perpetuate religiosity in ever line of daily disursive practices that have larger families. Hence, the reason why America is heavily influenced by Chrisitanity in all of its demoninations. Its like anthrax, spreading over the country like a disease. Heck, they’ve got a monopoly on the marraige system. It would be so much better and cheaper if people simply learned that eloping was the way to go. But noooo… families, or in most cases certain sides of families, rooted in religious practices have to have large elaborate weddings overseen by the root of all evil… religion.

  • HG

    says:

    I don’t understand – how can McCain claim to be pro-life, yet he voted for the war? Isn’t that the greatest inconsistency there ever was? Obama has the judgment and consistency to lead this country whether in a time of war or a time of peace. Don’t be fooled for a minute by the theater McCain is playing and think he is going to be any better than Bush. He is unfit to run this country. Period.

  • Vivian

    says:

    What a bunch of Bull– Rick Warren just admittted on CNN that John McCain was not in the cone of silence he said he was in when he opened the program last night.
    Mac wasn’t even in the building– He heard the questions and Obama answers.
    He was in a motorcade crsuing with the secret service– I bet he wathced it before geting to Saddleback– WHAT A FARCE

    Warren looks like the horse’s ass because MCCain made him look like one!

  • Hortenze

    says:

    As I said before, Obama needs a speech therapist and someone to coach him to sit up straight if he is going to look and sound presidential.

  • Charlie

    says:

    McCain made reference to the Code of Conduct that POWs are supposed to adhere to.

    He conveniently left out a few details.

    http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcianhro.htm

    He really scares me when he barely thinks about his responses to tough questions. He either knew the questions ahead of time, or he shoots entirely from the hip like Bush. We’ve had enough of that in the last 7+ years.

  • Daniel

    says:

    In response to Rita…
    Inexperience = unable to be corrupt, hence the Jesus-like references.
    Mccain is corrupt… the Georgians bought him for $200,000, and recently argued that he did not step forward, indicating that he squelched on the deal. You are correct ins saying that both Putin (although I think you mean Medvedev) and Ahmadinejad would be willing to face Obama more so than Mccain. Well, this is the basis of Obama’s argument that opening a dialogue with our adversaries is usually better than dropping bombs on them arbitrarily in the night. That usually produces counterproductive results at an exponential rate. One death like this will create about 20 to 30 terrorists, even if the person who was killed was initially not one. Discourse always works.
    “I don’t feel Obama has the experience or the decisiveness needed to lead this country after hearing last night’s pseudo-debate.”
    If it took you until last night to find out who you like as a candidate, than I find your capabilities of choosing a presidential candidate to be highly suspect. Please stay home on November 5th.

  • Daniel

    says:

    Hortenze…
    Your right… Obama needs a speech therapist… he’s only been able to mobilize masses around the world to support him and give him a record breaking amount of money to fuel his campaign.. bu yet, clever of you to recognize that he needs a speech therapist. Did you ever think that it could be your biased interpretation, of yourself being perhaps a little bit to condescending at how other people should look according to your distorted worldview? Practice some self-relfection bud.

  • Dave Z

    says:

    Uh, Vivian…care to document that charge? A CNN website link or something? I’ve heard nothing about this anywhere else.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    Yes, Vivian, please, some source for this. It would be a major story, if you can document it — and I believe from what I saw last night — my first exposure to Rick Warren — that he would be among the first to condemn McCain for it.

  • joey

    says:

    Christ was a liberal…to be anti-Christ is to be anti -liberal. Conservatives are anti-liberal…therefore conservatives are anti-Christ. The party of hypocrisy rules.

    There were no follow up questions so McCain was free to be general and guide his responses to pure political campaigning. Everything was tilted in a conservative republican direction to start off with and each question was one of primarily republican concern devoid of details. On abortion, no particulars from McCain on how to make them less frequent. On foreign policy I’m surprised McCain didn’t just reiterate his policy of “I’d just sit the Sunnis and Shittes down and say stop the bullshit”.

    The whole event seemed premised on “I’ll just throw a question out there and you feel free to just campaign off of it…but nothing that can be used to make a republican look bad….like lobbyists, pre-emptive war lies and such”.

    The proof is this: McCain stinks on everything (the list is huge…in fact find an issue McCain is even tolerable on) so if he walked away looking good or if you got a favorable impression of him from this event then the event itself was a misleading propaganda tool for the right. It would be like walking away from hearing a public conversation with Mussolini saying “You know, he’s not such a bad guy after all. He gave good answers.”

    You’ve been set up by respect…which means never asking anything that might show one in a bad light. I cannot believe we are actually giving credence to a would be authoritarian dictator war instigator. America should have it’s own campaign debate/discussion hall moderated by the leaque of Women voters who don’t care what your religious preferences are (hell, the land of the free and of religious tolerance has made it a requirement to be Christian in order to be president. We never asked before)

    How about a list if ten moral principles that are universal being our guidelines rather than a quote from a book that says we should stone adulterers and those who eat shellfish. Just saying…who cares. Hopefully people will see how pathetic McCain would be as president…For he has clearly demonstrated that during his campaign no matter how “Christian” he acts for the cameras. He is a war seeker not a peach keeper…just ask him.

  • Daniel

    says:

    I am sooooo glad that the debates have finally begun! Judging by the way things went last night, I am increasingly confident that the majority of US citizens will slowly begin to realize that Obama is the better choice to lead us into a new direction away from war, and more toward opening up dialogue and positive opportunities with other countries.

  • ed

    says:

    I was very surprised that Obama had the same stance on gay marriage as McCain. They both agree that marriage is between a man and a woman but the states should decide it. I though Obama was pro gay marriage. I am glad they are having these forums as I am learning something new every time. As an independent I am leaning toward McCain now. I just wish Obama could be his vice president and take over in 4 years when he had the experience. Oh well.

  • ed

    says:

    By the way, how to make abortions less frequent is just a dumb ploy by Obama. No matter what you do there will not be a drop in abortions no matter what education or birth control is out there. I know a girl that had 4 and she was a white corporate lawyer so she was smart enough to know better. Might as well just declare that you are going to make world peace and just be completely out of whack lol

  • PCL

    says:

    John McCain told a story at the Saddleback Conference about how a Vietnamese prison guard worshipped with him by drawing a cross in the dirt at Christmas, and then erasing it with his shoe.

    Several commenters on a WashingtonPost.com article say that McCain stole the story from Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I have listed one below who gives the original story and the reference where it may be found.

    My wife and I are staunch Obama supporters, but McCain had my wife crying with that story.

    If McCain lied about this, he should be toast.

    ____________________________________________________________________

    Posted by: Jackie B. | August 17, 2008 5:53 PM

    Where John Mccain plagiarized his cross in the sand story. The old man has been telling the BS story he no longer knows if it even actually happened to him or not.
    see below

    Along with other prisoners, he worked in the fields day after day, in rain and sun, during summer and winter. His life appeared to be nothing more than backbreaking labor and slow starvation. The intense suffering reduced him to a state of despair.

    On one particular day, the hopelessness of his situation became too much for him. He saw no reason to continue his struggle, no reason to keep on living. His life made no difference in the world. So he gave up.

    Leaving his shovel on the ground, he slowly walked to a crude bench and sat down. He knew that at any moment a guard would order him to stand up, and when he failed to respond, the guard would beat him to death, probably with his own shovel. He had seen it happen to other prisoners.

    As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.

    As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire perspective changed. He knew he was only one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet he knew there was something greater than the evil he saw in the prison camp, something greater than the Soviet Union. He knew that hope for all people was represented by that simple Cross. Through the power of the Cross, anything was possible.

    Solzhenitsyn slowly rose to his feet, picked up his shovel, and went back to work. Outwardly, nothing had changed. Inside, he had received hope.

    So, it is very interesting that Mr. Solzhenitsyn and Mr. McCain had the same Christian guard/prisoner experience. Or maybe it is all just a made up story. Somehow I doubt that Alexander Solzhenitsyn heard John McCain’s story and copied it.

    This story was actually excerpted from “The Gulag Archipelago” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, which was released in the US in 1973.

    UPDATE X2: It seems that McCain is a bit of a Solzhenitsyn fan, as evidenced in his article in the NY Sun . It leaves little doubt Mccain stole the story from Solzhenitsyn

    http://www.nysun.com/opinion/solzhenitsyn-at-work/83117/

  • Bey

    says:

    Ed @ 53,54: Please don’t be a bigger fool than you must. Obama’s views on marriage make it clear he frames it as a religious sacrament between a man and a woman. He draws a clear line between a “sacred” marriage and a civil marriage – e.g., a civil union. I happen to disagree with him on limiting the sacrament to a man and a woman, but I respect the fact that he doesn’t use his position to deny others the same civil rights he enjoys.

    The threesome he, Michelle, and God have is no one’s business but their own ;D.

    As for your acquaintance who’s had 4 abortions? Please. You tipped your hand when you pointed out that she was white you racist pig.

  • Grandma from MI

    says:

    Rick Warren did admit on CNN that McCain had not yet arrived at church when questions started. He arrived 30+ minutes later. However, he asked McCain if he heard anything and he said no, Rick Warren believes him. I don’t

  • libra

    says:

    PCL, @56

    I agree; if it’s true, then the “Cross In the Sand” story should become McCain’s equivalent of the “Tuzla Airport” flap.

    I admit to never having read any of Solzhenitsyn’s stuff (saw a film based on “One Day In Life of Ivan Denisovich”, made during one of the later “thaws”). I did manage to get my hands on both “The Gulag Archipelago” and “In the First Circle”, but both were samizdat editions — printed on both sides of onionskin-thin paper (for easier hiding) *and* in Russian. I gave up trying to read them after a couple of pages. My mother plowed through both and gave me a summary of each, but it wouldn’t have included details like that. It would be nice if someone could actually point to edition, page number, etc. Combined with a couple of clips of McCain telling the story (last night wasn’t the first time), it would make something that even the TV pundicks might take notice of.

  • Bruno

    says:

    However, he asked McCain if he heard anything and he said no, Rick Warren believes him

    I believe McCain when he said he didn’t hear anything. Of course, McCain can’t be bothered by having to actually watch what Obama is saying and what Warren is asking. That would take too much time. McCain was lucky that Warren didn’t ask him whether any of his staff members briefed him on the questions they heard. Now, at that time McCain would have lied, that much is obvious.

    It’s a typical Republican dodging answer: Lying by omission because you didn’t ask the correct question.

  • George

    says:

    During Pastor Warren’s appearance on CNN this afternoon with Rick Sanchez, it surfaced that McCain didn’t even arrive at the church until Obama had been on the air 30 minutes. When pressed by Sanchex, Warren said he had not realized that and later asked if McCain or his campaign had listened to any of the Obama hour before arriving at the church. They said that they had not and Warren said he takes them at their word. Maybe so but last night, after Warren had asked McCain about six questions, I turned to my wife and said “McCain already has the questions.” There was no doubt in my mind. I’ll leave it to others to decide. I was disappointed that McCain deflected most questions with stump speech material and Warren let him get away with it but generally thought both candidates did well albeit with very different styles. Obama will need to change his style in the fall debates.

  • Patricia

    says:

    I have watched quite a few of McCain’s stump speeches. During his Q & A time, it takes him a long time just to get to the question, let alone answer it. That is why Imy gut tells me he heard many of the questions before time. I say that because he started answering two of the questions BEFORE he heard the whole question. AND I felt like he was giving a stump speech; not talking to Rev. Warren. I did not want to hear his stories again. He sounded so rehearsed. Of course, if you say what you have said 1000 times, it should come out thoughtfully, wouldn’t you say?

    AND he was talking to the choir. Put McCain in a left-wing group to answer questions and he would fall apart completely.

    Obama’s answers were not deep, but he gave me a sense that he understands what needs to be done-he gets the “big picture.” He does need to be more specific and to try to not hesitate on words. I realize it is his thought process. He thinks carefully which takes longer sometimes, creating a little uneasiness.

  • Hannah

    says:

    #61: I believe that Warren will be on Larry King tomorrow. I wonder if Larry will bring it up.

    I perked up my ears when McCain asked Warren if he could answer about the judges when Warren hadn’t even asked that question yet. Hmmm…

  • Hannah

    says:

    #62: If McCain gave yesterday’s answers at my church or other mainline liberal denominations, he wouldn’t get much positive response at all. It’s obvious he was pandering to the largely Republican group.

    That said, I did notice that when the camera scanned the audience, not everyone was clapping for McCain. And Obama got some good response.

  • Paul Kelley

    says:

    The tax-exempt status of the pastor’s church should be immediately revoked. The questions were set up for McCain. This church is involved in politics.

  • EdJohn

    says:

    This morning I listened to CNN and in the interview the pastor admitted not to know McShame wasn’t in the cone of silem\nce. However the interviewer Rick S did not ask the pastor: How come you said that the drawing of the placement of the candidates order was done and Obama got the first spot. How is that possible when McShame isn’t present ????????

  • bcinaz

    says:

    McCain was happy to be amongst his base again – just like in Aspen. I heard the cover charge was between $500 – $2000. Point One.

    Does evil exist?

    What an appalling spectacle.

    I hope this clown loses his tax exemption for conducting political business in his house of worship!

  • Bruno

    says:

    I’m stating it again: let’s not get hung up on the $5 million mention. As the trolls have adequately proven, they won’t let you get away with it.

    The bigger question is: McCain did not offer a figure of what he considers to be ‘rich’ Maybe the MSM will ask him that question. No dodging allowed. Maybe he will be shamed in making a statement along those lines.

    Especially since he pre-empted it by saying that it would probably be taken out of context. If he knew it would, why did he not take a few seconds and clarify it before it could get out of hand by misinterpretation.

    That’s what needs to be talked about, not the $5 million figure. Maybe he’ll fess up that it is $5 million, but you have to give it to McCain… he floated the balloon. It’s firmly been shot down. So he can comfortable state: “Relax, it was only a joke, I was having some fun. the amount I define as being rich is $xxx,xx” (which will of course be lower than the initially stated $5 million.

  • serena1313

    says:

    I’ve read a lot of comments across the web wrt last night’s forum and most say basically what is said . But what most do not seem to pass over is that this was not a debate; it was a conversation. Obama treated it as such; McCain did not.

    If it had been a debate McCain would have scored more points, but it was a conversation that required thoughtful answers thus applying those merits: McCain lost and Obama won if such a thing exists — winning or losing a conversational-type Q&A session.

    Obama also introduced himself to an audience that otherwise he may not have had the chance to do so. Hence that is a plus for Obama. Furthermore he dispelled the myths and rumours that he would not have been able to do otherwise. Did he win over voters? Who knows, but I would guess at least a handful. Every vote counts.

    In contrast McCain gave the audience what they wanted to hear, period. By the same token he also exposed himself to independents and women who may change their minds about supporting a pro-life candidate who would never have nominated Ginsberg, Souter and the other two moderate Justices on the Supreme Court.

    All in all it was a good night for Obama.

  • DrToketee

    says:

    Let’s just keep it simple, folks; the certified documentation and multiple confirmations are sitting in a huge pile now. McCain: dumb, dirty, and a liar.

  • mattis

    says:

    Rick Warren is a complete douchebag. My 8 year old could have come up with better questions. Nice follow up to McCains pander fest. Thus was a trap, plain and simple. We better start fighting, and so better Obama or its over. If he picks a namby pamby VP then its going to get real bad real quick.