Recap of Obama-McCain Faith Forum

Our earlier thread on this is full. Here's a news article with a recap of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain's answers at tonight's faith forum.

< Olympics Open Thread (And Other Topics) | Capitalism vs. Human Rights? It's Not That Simple >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    wise men? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:51:53 PM EST
    I know I shouldnt look for logic in these candidate answers, but is that grandmother he listed as one of his three wisest people the same women he threw under the bus a couple of months ago?

    That answer was pander-fest for both candidates (none / 0) (#7)
    by catfish on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:00:06 AM EST
    though McCain's answer had substance in its pandering:
    Asked to name three wise people they would listen to, Obama named his wife, Michelle; his maternal grandmother, who lives in Hawaii; and, not limiting himself to only a third, named several Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

    McCain named Gen. David Petreaus, head of U.S. troops in Iraq; U.S. Rep. and veteran civil rights leader John Lewis, D-Ga.; and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, a top adviser to his campaign.

    I thought it was a great question because it isn't (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:17:42 AM EST
    something most people think a whole lot about -- and I thought the differences in their answers was interesting.  

    Obama picked two people who are personally close to him.  McCain picked a military guy, a black democrat Civil Rights leader, and a woman in business.  

    If McCain thought up those three people on the spot, props to him because he reached across the entire spectrum.  


    Grace (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:23:51 AM EST
    do you have a blog?  I love the way you think!  Thanks for pointing out the more specific info on McCain's choices.

    Not that I would vote McCain but that was pretty smart of him do think of those people.

    That's the kinda thinking that wins elections.

    I think by picking Michelle that may bring into question her writings in college.  [I can see the GOP running an ad, "So, Obama thinks she's one of the smartest people, here's what she had to say while at Princeton...]



    How much smarts (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:27:15 AM EST
    do you think it takes to be Bush's military puppet?

    The political nature of whatever Michelle Obama wrote at college - PRINCETON, btw - should not be part of our political debate.  I hope the GOP isn't dumb enough to attack his wife.


    wow (5.00 / 9) (#44)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:42:06 AM EST
    if you don't think that the GOP isn't going to attack Michelle Obama just ask Teresa Heinz Kerry and HILLARY Clinton about that.

    You CANNOT be that gullible.  Politics is a knife fight all the way.  Did you NOT see the TN GOP already go after her with the "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of America" statement?

    Just wait until after Labor Day.  THAT's when the goons will be let loose.


    Unless Mrs. Obama goes out and (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:44:17 AM EST
    makes speeches, I hope the repubs.don't go after her. I think what she would say in a speech is fair game, but otherwise, they should leave her out of it. I think they have plenty of ammo for her husband.

    Since she's the keynote speaker (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:47:02 AM EST
    on Monday night at the Dem convention, I think we can safely assume she'll be making speeches.

    Michelle gives lots of speeches (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:27:50 AM EST
    She campaigns for her husband frequently.

    But do you (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:59:00 AM EST
    really think the GOP should or will try to rifle through Michelle's college writings for dirt?  And that Obama just invited them to do so by calling her one of the smartest people he knows?

    And even McCain distanced himself from that TN ad.

    Michelle will obviously be held accountable for her stump speeches.  That's fine.


    Yes I do (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:04:34 AM EST
    just like the R's started the false rumor about McCain's adopted daughter.

    If they can do that to one of their own, donchu think that MO will be a target?  They already have their sights set on her.  And her Princeton writings have been a subject of controversy.  Don't think for one minute that if the R's can wedge anything they will.

    The White House is about power.  The R's have had it for 7.5 years.  Doubt they are going to let it go without a knock-down drag out, Michelle Obama or whoever be da**ed.


    I thought Michelle's (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:42:51 AM EST
    writings at Princeton were about the experience of African Americans at Princeton.  

    If the Repubs would for some reason target that era of her life, I think we will have a full blown race-baiting campaign.  But, from reading descriptions of that thesis, it doesn't seem like there's anything particularly inflammatory there.


    I heard (3.50 / 4) (#96)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:12:07 AM EST
    she wrote about all the racism at Princeton and attributed it to the reason she not liked at Princeton.  Apparently Princeton is filled with racists who didn't like Michelle.  

    I find that VERY hard to believe.  I've never met anyone from Princeton who was a racist.  Perhaps Michelle just wasn't very likeable and blamed it on racism.  That was my thought.  She doesn't always come across as warm and fuzzy, or even very likeable.  


    Oh please. (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:02:37 AM EST
    Are you familiar with the concept of institutional racism?

    Politico:  MO's thesis

    No matter how many people you've met at Princeton, I am sure it doesn't compare to going to school with thousands of them at once, in a very elite, traditionally white environment, as a black woman.

    There is no question as to the reality of insitutional racism TODAY, and I am sure it was even greater in 1985, when Michelle Obama wrote her thesis.  That is what she is talking about when she says this - "Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments."  And she is right.

    Or, maybe you're right, she was just lashing out about her own inability to be "warm" and "fuzzy" enough.  Even though her work is squarely in an insightful sociological tradition of writing on race relations.


    My mom went to Princeton at the around the same (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:03:01 AM EST
    Time.  She went the first or second year that it let in women and she HATED IT.  Her parents didn't allow her to go to Harvard because it was too far away, so she had to stay there.  At the time (I have a couple of black friends that went there and enjoyed it) it was the SOUTHERN gentleman's school.

    Well Obama felt free to rifle through (5.00 / 6) (#208)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:46:18 AM EST
    Hillary's college work -- are you saying you think the Republicans will be more circumspect?  Not to mention her defense, as a court-appointed attorney, of a rapist early in her career.

    Sure, that got short shrift here (on a defense lawyer's site) as it should, but not only was it all over the netrootz at the time, I still see it brought up elsewhere.

    Two things are really bothersome about Michelle -- the fact that the Obama campaign is happy to have her campaign for him but freak out when ever anybody criticizes her, and second, shouting unfair! unfair! when anything like this comes up.  Ok, so that isn't actually against Michelle, but about Obama's supporters, who think all's fair until it's their turn.


    it might be a good idea then for (4.00 / 3) (#40)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:38:18 AM EST
    michelle not to say ugly things about the usa especially while campaigning for her husband to be president.

    I thought Obama's (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:33:21 AM EST
    two female choices sounded like sentimental choices, not necessarily smart choices.

    I guess it's a question of judgment...  ;-)

    (No, I do not have a blog though I keep thinking I need to start one!)


    I thought he was pandering (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:20:58 AM EST
    to his wife, when he gratuitously named her,

    and to the older women demographic that really doesn't support him, when he said his grandmother.

    If he hasn't met smarter, wiser people through his IVY League schooling, and political experiences, then he isn't mingling.


    They may be a cut above everyone else, (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:27:37 AM EST
    but Obama's answer didn't really explain why they are which is where he missed the boat.  McCain was well scripted with a little context about each of his picks.

    I think you are a fabulous blogger, Grace (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by bridget on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:29:22 AM EST
    one of my v. favorites here

    if you have the time and energy to start a blog, go for it. I'll visit :-)


    Absolutely. And so was the choice of elderly, ill (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by esmense on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:56:09 AM EST
    Democratic lion, Teddy Kennedy.

    Also, that 'cute' thing of theirs that she (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:19:31 AM EST
    puts him in his place won't play well to men worried about his being so 'pliable' - it's a tiresome thing anyway; it used to be followed by "I'm not a perfect man" but no one had been saying he was.

    Had Obama mentioned Kurt Vonnegut and (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by bridget on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:24:03 AM EST
    Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali

    I would vote for him.

    A Dream candidate he would be ... sigh


    Your right McCain did have a lot of substance (4.00 / 3) (#116)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:20:05 AM EST
    His substance included:
    Life starts at conception
    Rich= 5 million
    Taxes bad

    we don't want to know when life begins (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Fen on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:56:10 PM EST
    And it showed that he was humble enough to understand that he does not determine or know when human life begins.

    Does he extend that to SCOTUS? Is it above their pay grade too?

    He can't answer the question?  VERY lame answer.

    And its an easy answer - we don't know with 100% certainty when life begins. And evolved societies err on the side of caution when a human life is involved. But we do the reverse wrt abortion. Why?

    He clearly said he was pro choice (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by coigue on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:03:52 AM EST
    He's pro-choice in the context of what (5.00 / 17) (#26)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:21:52 AM EST
    he believes the right choices are, which is why he keeps attaching conditions and nuance to some of the more controversial aspects of abortion.

    That's not being pro-choice, sorry.

    Being pro-choice means that, regardless of what you believe, or what choice you would make, you respect the right of others to make their own choice, and you do not prevent them from doing so.


    Absolutely (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:30:31 AM EST
    I may have a few here who disagree with me but I feel that choice is purely a woman's issue. Men like Obama and McCain, please.   I liked Ann Richards' view on family planning:  "Every child should be a wanted child."  The Clintons also offered sound advice:  "Abortions should be safe, rare and LEGAL."

    Men do not have to go through the physical and mental changes women go through to have a child.

    I read one time that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.


    Credit goes, I believe (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:41:52 AM EST
    to Gloria Steinem.

    Flo Kennedy (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by Redshoes on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:26:21 AM EST
    said that to a taxi cab driver in Boston.  Not sure the story is true but certainly agree with the sentiment.  Of course if males bore children ....

    Second Dr. Molly ... and as to the issue of when does human life begin, why does it matter in the context of whether you believe an individual has the right to make decisions regarding their medical care or whether the state has the right to intervene and dictate that care?   Until the fetus can survive outside the womb (O'Connor's belief that technology will undo Roe) the reality is that an unborn, would-be child isn't viable until such a time.

    As for those who oppose the right to choose an abortion, ask yourself this question, kidney transplants pose less medical risk than pregnancy, should the state force citizens to donate their extra kidney?  It's not about what you believe morally or ethically but rather politically.  Do you want a regime where the power of the government dictates your medical care or do you instead believe that these decisions are better left to the conscience of the individual?


    You're absolutely correct (5.00 / 6) (#200)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:33:30 AM EST
    Sometimes I get sucked into these 'when does life begin' arguments (probably because I can't stand the simplisticness and hypocrisy of those arguments), but I agree with you that it's a canard. What matters is an individual's right to make their own decisions. I agree completely with your entire comment.

    I had a similar problem with his response on (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:40:24 AM EST
    stem cell research.  

    Obama said they were using embryoes that were going to be discarded.  He made it sound like it was no big deal because they were going to throw them out anyway!    

    Every right to life person knows that an embryo is an unborn child.  It's a fertilized egg just waiting to be implanted!  Discarding embryoes should be illegal!      


    Further, the fundies have been (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:38:40 AM EST
    condidtioned to believe that they have a right to take those embryos - other people's embryos - and make "snowflake babies".  Obama should have pointed out that people using the fertility clinics once successful in having a child would choose to help advance life-saving medical treatments by donating their eggs and sperm to research facilities.  That is giving the gift of life potentially to millions of people around the world.

    Obama was supposed to be able to make this kind of broader humanitarian case to this Christian audience, but he kind of missed the boat a few times.


    Yes, another instance (none / 0) (#86)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:30:35 AM EST
    Where I have no idea what he's saying.  

    he has to say it like that (none / 0) (#93)
    by Fen on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:45:24 AM EST
    Obama said they were using embryoes that were going to be discarded.  He made it sound like it was no big deal because they were going to throw them out anyway!

    Proponents of stem cell research must remind the public that the embryoes are being "recycled" from other uses, instead of "harvested" for the sole purpose of research.

    Its a PR thing.


    So I gather (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:46:50 AM EST
    You must be against in vitro fertilization and all those infertile evangelicals trying to get pregnant that way? Because during the process of IVF, which is HUGELY popular and profitable in all segments of society right now, thousands of fertilized eggs are thrown in the trash.

    When does life begin? (5.00 / 14) (#10)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:04:23 AM EST
    I'm with Erma Bombeck:  "When the kids leave home and the dog dies."

    Pay Grade? (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by AlSmith on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:15:26 AM EST

    I saw that in one of the news reports.

    Man, that weasely "thats beyond my pay grade" answer had better be squelched by his advisers but fast. I can see hearing that from a bank teller but when you are president we dont want any measly excuses that you dont have enough authority or arent getting paid enough to be unpopular.


    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:20:58 AM EST
    The answers to that are so obvious and so numerous that it is difficult to see why you would ask why.

    Because TWO lives are involved - and sometimes the health and wellbeing of one are in conflict with the other.

    Because people are sexually irresponsible and because the results of that -- unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children -- can be very bad.

    Because horrible things like rape and incest happen a lot, and most people are not OK gestating and giving birth to the results of that.

    I could go on all day with the reasons, but I'm quite sure you KNOW all these things but are pretending that you don't.


    Molly, thanks for being honest (1.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Fen on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:46:27 AM EST
    The answers to that are so obvious and so numerous that it is difficult to see why you would ask why.

    To explain why we don't want to know the answer to the question.

    We know that birth control is not 100% effective. We know we're taking a risk. We CHOOSE to take that risk anyway. Then, if there is an "accident", we assert that our Liberty trumps a Life.

    We pretend that since there is uncertainty re when life begins, what we're doing isn't really murdering merely to maintain our lifestyle.

    With that in mind, its obvious that the last thing we want is to have that uncertainty removed - we don't want to know when life begins. We might have to make some uncomfortable changes in our lifestyle.  


    I guess I don't totally see it that way... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:00:36 AM EST
    ...although I can understand that a definitive answer on when life begins from a scientific standpoint would influence a lot of people but for me it is more a fundamental question of when rights begin. If you are looking at life from a scientific standpoint, nature does not sanctify or raise human life above any other form of life. Humans abuse "life" on many, many levels every single day. So pinpointing when an embryo is a life doesn't seem to make that much difference to me because for me it is a matter of human rights and human law more than scientific law.

    "maintain our lifestyle" (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:14:44 AM EST
    Yeah, I suppose if you think that every woman who gets pregnant has some theoretical "lifestyle" that makes sense.

    The question I have then, is if the current lifestyle is abject poverty and the next rung down is homelessness, then what?  What is in the best interest of woman and child?

    Or is this where people start asserting that "poor women shouldn't have sexual intercourse!" or that poor women are obligated to give up their babies because it would be "for the best"?

    I'm not sure where that leaves poor women.  I'd have to go with third class citizen since it's obviously a step down from second class citizen.


    I disagree completely with your premise (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:37:23 AM EST
    I don't think it has anything to do with NOT WANTING to know the answer to the question. I'm a pathetically overeducated biologist, and I can tell you that there is just no easy answer to the question - not because we don't want to know, but because it is complex. Every cell is alive, even viruses are alive by most definitions or life. The uncertainty about the question is not pretending, it is complex religious or philosophical question, not a simplistic one.

    Sex and mistakes are always going to happen. Apparently, rape is always going to happen too. There will always be unwanted and unintended pregnancies. I think Obama is right - try to reduce those as much as possible, but don't shame women and girls for decisions that are deeply complex sometimes involving medical issues, moral issues, sexual abuse issues, etc. That is none of anyone else's business.


    Who's this 'we' of which you speak? (5.00 / 6) (#184)
    by Ellie on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:09:31 AM EST
    We pretend that since there is uncertainty re when life begins, what we're doing isn't really murdering merely to maintain our lifestyle.

    With that in mind, its obvious that the last thing we want is to have that uncertainty removed - we don't want to know when life begins. We might have to make some uncomfortable changes in our lifestyle.

    Well until you and the mouse in your pocket can show legal, ethical, medical or moral standing, what we do isn't your call nor your judgment to make.

    You'll also have to do better than your ridiculous, sweeping assumptions trivializing the choices people have to make in looking after their own and loved ones' well being.

    In the meantime, I'd wrangle an angry mob, head over to the Olympics and arrest every US athlete, female or male, as potential murderers and abetters just to fall hard on the right "side" of life.

    Training for elite athletic competition is a common cause of spontaneous abortion, expulsion of fertilized eggs and a big monkey wrench in the reproductive cycle.

    After that, I'd get to work on purging every pharmacy of OTC pharmaceuticals that endanger Raw Life everywhere along the reproductive chain.

    Following that, perhaps go after the barbers and manicurists ...


    Because people are sexually irresponsible... (none / 0) (#157)
    by wasabi on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:15:57 AM EST
    I can attest to the fact that when people are sexually responsible, stuff happens.  Just ask me.

    Sure (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:31:26 AM EST
    I hope that didn't come off as a judgment, I didn't intend it that way. Humans like sex, and they are going to have lots of it, and sometimes make mistakes or have accidents regarding birth control. I don't think that means they should be forced to bear unwanted children.

    What really gets me sometimes is the self-righteousness of the anti-choice crowd, especially men, because you just KNOW that many of these people had lots and lots of unprotected sex without a thought about the consequence. Stuff happens. We're only human.


    wrong. (none / 0) (#12)
    by coigue on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:07:48 AM EST
    on both counts. Most current societies err on the side of profit.

    And with abortion, we err on the side of the party we KNOW is sentient.


    You're just reinforcing my point (none / 0) (#32)
    by Fen on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:29:16 AM EST
    You admit that you aren't sure whether you are taking a human life. But you will continue to do it anyway.

    So I take it you are against (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:33:44 AM EST
    all wars and the death penalty?

    you can do better (none / 0) (#62)
    by Fen on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:05:45 AM EST
    Yes. I don't trust the State with the power to execute its citizens, even with "reasonable doubt" as a qualifer. And as a former Marine, I hate all wars and believe in ending them quickly and decisively.

    But why do you need to draw equivalence and invoke Tu Quoque? Its a simple question:

    you admit you aren't sure if you are taking a human life, so why do you continue to do it?


    An answer (5.00 / 6) (#154)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:12:55 AM EST
    It only makes sense to define one as alive, when the being can survive in a non (directly) symbiotic relationship.  For humans that is when we have enough surfactant in our lungs to allow the child to to taken from the mother and survive.  That is about at week 24-26 (probably a bit later).

    And in fact, this is the relgious perspective of many Muslims and Jews throughout this world.


    So you are a hypocrite after all. (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:40:42 AM EST
    I hate all wars and believe in ending them quickly and decisively.

    You don't mind killing people as long as it can be done quickly and decisively. Unless of course they are just zygotes, in which case its a mortal sin.


    McCain can say the same things as Bush but (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:57:48 PM EST
    make them seem a lot less infuriating. Eerie.

    It's probably the absence of the (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:35:48 AM EST
    Beavis/Butthead personality, ya know?  The "heh-heh-heh" at the end of some of the things Bush says have never said "serious, thoughtful leader" as much as they said "development arrested at age 11 - complete with fondness for toilet talk and fart noises."

    Makes a difference.


    grandfather. Ageism is an issue, but not in this. You expect your grandfather to say some cranky things that you must elect to ignore, because he's who he is.  When he says something stupid, you don't think grandpa is a dork he's just . . . beng grandpa, unlike the thought you have of someone your age saying the same stupid thing. For Boomers, he works because he is upholding their right to RULE, even as they hit retirement and have to step aside for 'those kids.' For younger people, who are eyeballing rather than listening with their forebrains, he does not come across as menacing to them or what is important to them, because they are sort of discounting that he really means it. If Obama said the same things at 47, they would be going bananas.

    Didn't hear much of "sounding like (4.14 / 7) (#35)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:32:01 AM EST
    Bush" What I heard was one candidate who hemmed and hawed alot, was mildly amusing, looked relaxed and gave convoluted answers to some of the questions. What I also heard was one candidate who looked at the audience, was quite amusing, very knowledgeable (altho' he went into more detail at times than was necessary), who seemed to answer some questions before they were posed, and who also looked relaxed. If you look at Obama's answer to the SCOTUS answer and hear his reply to his opinion of Roberts, I find his answer to be slightly different from what I've read about his vote (going to be against)for Roberts. Just one example.

    I didn't watch it (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:04:47 AM EST
    but according to this account:

    Obama said the most gut-wrenching decision of his life was to vote against the Iraq War. McCain said it was when he declined an offer to leave a prison camp in Vietnam.

    (emphasis mine)

    Did he misspeak..AGAIN on this issue? He was not in the Senate when that vote took place.. Did he misspeak..AGAIN or did he.....(lied?)

    I would like to add an poignant and superb comment on this by "Hope" at NoQuarter:

    I offer a little scrutiny to Obama's mis statement. If he had actually voted against the war..why does he now proffer that it would have been gut wrenching? Wasn't it supposed to have been his unfaultering, sound judgement that provided him the moral authority over Hillary and McCain for being the sole opponent to the war? He never appeared to have anguished about his [...] opinion at all

    That was my immediate thought as well (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:14:33 AM EST
    If he strongly believes in the wrongness of the war, why is it gut-wrenching to vote against it? The answer makes no sense.

    Found a transcript (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:50:41 AM EST
    it seems OBAMA did NOT SAY he "VOTED" for the war.

    SO what I was told and what that paper I link to is reporting is wrong.

    This is what it says:

    In Part I of the transcript, Page 8, Obama says:


    on Page 12 of Part I of the transcript, Obama says :



    Hmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:56:41 AM EST
    Why would opposition to war be gut wrenching?  If he felt that the war in Iraq was wrong (as most of the Gore-voting public knew back in 2002) it shouldn't be gut-wrenching, it should be a NO-BRAINER.

    The evidence against Iraq was as thin as Obama's resume.  Couple that with Joe Wilson and others who were advising against the war, no guts should have been wrenching any where.

    Sorry but I don't buy it.  If a leader or someone who is running for higher office is to wage war, it is a categorical imperative.


    I agree with you. (5.00 / 10) (#66)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:08:52 AM EST
    It wasn't even like he had to VOTE on it and send boys into battle!  He was just picking sides and giving speeches!  

    How will he ever, as President, handle actually having to decide whether to go to war or not when his hardest thing in the past was picking a side?

    I'm sorry, but that was a really bad answer.  It really shows that he is not ready to lead.  


    that response (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:17:19 AM EST
    will probably be used against him in ads this fall.

    the gut wrenching decision (4.70 / 10) (#104)
    by kimsaw on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 05:39:29 AM EST
    was which side of the fence would be most profitable to his political career. Gut wrenching because he was trying to get elected in "no war" majority district? He chose a safe harbor to bank on as he always does. "Present anyone"?

    This is one issue that makes me not want (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:54:21 AM EST
    to vote for him -- and that is that he seems very indecisive.  We don't need a leader who is incapable of making decisions.  That would be a total disaster for this country since decisions have to be made.

    I don't believe his indecisiveness was as noticeable in the primaries since Axelrod and others appear to have been making most of the decisions.  But, if he gets elected, the buck stops with him.  It's not up to others to make decisions for him.  

    He says he has the judgment to lead -- but I want to know if he has the will to lead.  

    There are a lot of people in this world who have great judgment but they never do anything that signifies making progress towards goals.  They correctly assess situations but are paralyzed when it comes to actually doing things.  Some people are not good in a pinch.  They are not deadline driven.  They can't make decisions.  

    I have a hard time believing Obama's most gut wrenching decision in his lifetime was picking a side to be on concerning war.  Combine that with all of his "Present" votes and you have the very portrait of someone who is not going to make a great leader.  Leaders cannot be indecisive.      


    I have to vote for him - I'm a Democrat, (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:09:30 AM EST
    BUT what really worries me is that a lot of people don't have to vote for him.  A lot of people will see this "thoughtful" thing as hesitance and indecision if he continues to under perform the way he did last night.  

    I'm a Democrat too! (5.00 / 11) (#132)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:32:53 AM EST
    I'd like to vote for him since I've voted for every Democrat for president since I registered to vote!  (And that was back in the 1970s!)

    For me, this is the first time in my lifetime that I have had such serious doubts about a candidate that I don't think I can vote for him.  

    Outside of Obama's wonderful speeches and the fact he's a Democrat, there isn't much I like about him.  He lacks experience.  He appears to be indecisive and lacking in personal convictions.  Away from the teleprompter, he appears to be marginal in answering questions and speaking about what he believes in (which leads me to believe, he doesn't hold very strong beliefs of his own).  

    I voted for Jimmy Carter and I've seen what voting for a weak candidate can do to the party for years to come.  I'm not willing to go through 10+ years of Republican rule just because Obama turns out to be another Jimmy Carter.  

    On top of that, I'm not happy about how Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and others in the DNC forced the superdelegates to endorse Obama.  That's NOT the way the superdelegate system was set up to be.

    If the election were to be held today, I would not vote for Obama.  There is always a chance that he'll pick such an amazing VP that I'll end up voting for him -- but right now, just him alone, it's highly doubtful he'll get my vote.  

    On the flip side, McCain and I share hardly any social values.  I agree with him somewhat on the military and foreign policy.  He has personal convictions.  

    Since my state (California) is overwhelmingly blue, I can cast a vote for McCain in hopes of just getting McCain within shouting distance of Obama and sending a message to the DNC.  


    As I said... (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:58:27 AM EST
    What worries me is that other people don't have to vote for Obama.

    Actually, there are two ways that he could blow even my vote - picking a Republican running mate or Colin Powell as VP.

    But having said that, I understand your reservations, respect them and even agree with them - except that I know John McCain is really a much more malevolent and erractic individual than most people realize - that's because I'm a Washingtonian - he has the distinction of being pretty much the only member of Congress that I know of who has numerous ex-staffers who dislike him so much that they actually talk about their extremely negative experiences with him openly and frankly.  That's pretty rare around these parts - especially for Republicans who are normally very discrete about their negative views of one of their own.  

    If you really are at all liberal or even only "moderate" in your views, you and John McCain have nothing in common.  He was in many ways a role model for Tom DeLay's army of extremists brought into primary out all of the Republican moderates in the early 90's.

    More and more, I think the Congressional Democratic Leadership latched onto Obama because they believed they could control him because he is so green.  They've really gambled with our chances in this race imo.  The fact that any Republican presidential candidate could be above 40% in the polls right now to me indicates that they've really gone out on a ledge right now.  At the end of the day, I don't think the DNC will need your protest vote to see the error of their ways.  I think there will be plenty of people who will choose McCain in earnest - enough to make this too close for comfort or even worse possibly enough for us to lose.


    If I vote for McCain (5.00 / 10) (#163)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:26:05 AM EST
    it's a vote against the DNC plan.  

    I have a friend who lives in Washington who is high enough in his company to pal around with all the DC bigwigs.  He's told me before that they all hang out together so nothing surprises me much when I read it.

    No one has to vote for Obama.  YOUR vote belongs to YOU!!  You can vote for whoever you want to!!  

    I seriously think the Democrats screwed up this season but I think they'll figure that out in November.  I don't believe Obama can carry enough states to become President.  (He lost most of the states that are needed in the primaries.)  


    My friend, (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:59:28 AM EST
    you have no sense of judgement if you agree with McCain on his military and foreign policy. McCain is as ideological a military hawk as they come. The NY Times
    article on how McCain started making a case to invade Iraq 6 months before Bush's WhiteHouse started doing the same is simply scary, it almost makes Bush look like a moderate. McCain is now once again ready to do an encore; this time he will get Russia involved.
    For all his tough talk regarding "rogue state rollback" and America's need to remove disparate regional troublemakers that were autocracies, McCain has always been surprisingly supportive of Pakistan's dictator, Musharaff (despite the fact that it is the only country that has exported nuclear technologies to various autocratic regimes in the world).

    Finally, it is a mistake to blame Jimmy Carter's "weakness" for subsequent Republican Presidencies (other than the 1980 election). Had Democrats not insisted on nominating ideological and non charismatic candidates like Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, the history of American Presidencies in the last quarter century would have been different.


    Only true if your career is not affected by (none / 0) (#203)
    by Christy1947 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:35:31 AM EST
    your very public choice. One of the problems of internet posting and progressive views generally is that the people who hold them are not taking life risks in exchange for doing so. So the guy in the Burger King will hoot at you. But you won't lose your job and your hopes and a lot of other things for holding that view, and what you can do to act on it in your internet lives is post a lot and perhaps go and picket or send money to a candidate. In McCarthy times, it could destroy your life to have progressive views, but these are not those times.

    I have never seen a politician (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 05:31:23 AM EST
    More adeptly politically exploit a war in my lifetime.

    I was getting used to the idea.

    poor guy.  i feel sorry for him.


    That;s better (4.76 / 13) (#55)
    by RalphB on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:55:08 AM EST
    but if that's as gut-wrenching as it gets for O, he's led a really charmed life.

    By the way, I don't believe what he said for a moment.  It was pure BS.


    Absolutely. (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by bridget on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:17:35 AM EST
    I second both of your comments - wholeheartedly.

    Obama was representing an anti-war district (5.00 / 8) (#149)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:01:49 AM EST
    gut-wrenching my foot.  I wish he wouldn't do that.  As soon as I hear something and think I can vote FOR him (rather than not vote at all), he does something like that -- just so he can point once again to his 'judgment' -- which by now we've seen is not anything to rave over.

      And we also heard that, beyond Michelle and his secluded grandmother, the wisest people he'd use for his administration are Sam Nunn (anti gays in the military) and Richard Lugar.

      Maybe while he reaches across the aisle in post-partisanship he could do the same with Clinton supporters like Wes Clark or Charle Rangel, with respect to his own party, but then he doesn't think in terms of the Democratic Party but talks only about his Movement.

      His own district was wholly anti-war.  No agony there.  He didn't run for U.S. Senate until the following year.  And he gave a speech that was so little thought of that there is no tape of it and no transcript (confirmed by Axelrod).  The speech we've seen in ads was re-enacted in a studio just for the ad.  For some reason his own version of the speech was taken off his website.

      As for the debate, I most liked his answer about Evil.

      Too thoughtful for that crowd though.


    It was not taken off his website (none / 0) (#175)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:49:46 AM EST
    Where did you hear that?

    He took the speech off his website in May of (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:14:31 AM EST
    2003 when he was running for the US Senate. Bruce Dixon of the Black Commentator called him on it at the time.

    Oh, I didn't realize andrys was talking about 2003 (none / 0) (#197)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:30:33 AM EST
    decide whether to take that risk and do what he did, or go along with the "You're with us or you're a traitor' crowd. And it was predictable that the 'with us or against us' crowd would indeed do their best to kill his career. Other people folded to the same pressure. It'll do as a gut wrenching choice.

    It was a political answer..... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:31:54 AM EST
    ....but I guess that's par for the course. It was a political venue.

    Can you give us a link to the transcript? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:03:34 AM EST
    All transcripts (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:07:55 AM EST
    Thanks tree !! (none / 0) (#79)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:25:05 AM EST
    And now that you found the exact quote (none / 0) (#63)
    by mbuchel on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:07:25 AM EST
    What's the sound from everyone excited about another Obama "gaffe"?

    If you look at the extended (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:12:14 AM EST
    quote it looks like he's trying to blur the line about his one speech against the war before he was in the Senate and his funding of the war until he started running for President.

     Probably not suitable for use in a McCain ad, but certainly not a strong clear answer.


    Two major speeches actually (none / 0) (#74)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:15:05 AM EST
    Not that that matters.  Just happened to read it tonight.

    Ooh, the lost speech. (5.00 / 13) (#78)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:23:52 AM EST
    Kind of like the lost album? I think "major" is a bit overboard as an adjective, since no one seems to have much noted the one at the time, and Obama had to "re-record" it later. And number two, if it exists, was even more obscure if we are just learning about it now.

    You're just learning about it now (2.00 / 5) (#110)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:51:12 AM EST
    Presumably because one of Hillary's campaign themes was to denigrate Obama's opposition to the Iraq war by referring to his one speech.  It wasn't a lost speech, both were significant enough in the Chicago area--to be fair, Obama was only a state political figure at the time so a "major" speech to him at this point in his career shouldn't be judged by national standards.  He was only an Illinois state senator who had recently lost his bid for Congress.

    Well that's the whole problem..... (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:38:48 AM EST
    ...with Obama for me. Your post underscores the fact that his resume is thin. Actually, I don't have a problem with that on its face. What I have a problem with is ramping up his experience as if it were more significant than it is. Frankly, I think the idealistic message of his campaign early on that it was a movement and yes we can has a lot more appeal than the cult of personality that it seems to have become.

    I keep thinking back to the (5.00 / 10) (#140)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:51:40 AM EST
    run up to the Iraq war.  

    I was posting on a small board then, with only a handful of posters.  Three of us were Democrats.  There was one Liberatarian and a few typical Republicans.  

    Of the three of us who were Democrats, one was born and raised in Europe and was married to a man in the military and she had a son in the military too.  

    All of us Democrats were against the war.  The issue started to get down to "supporting the troops" and the woman who had family in the military explained you could be against the war while still supporting the troops.  The Republicans disagreed.  The Libertarian thought the war would be over in a week or so and the Iraqis would greet us with flowers because we were liberators.  We were going to bring Democracy to Iraq.    

    Anyway, from what I remember, being a Democrat against the war was NOT a courageous or difficult position to take since MANY Democrats were against the war.  (I wish someone could get polling statistics from then.)  

    The only Democratic politicians I can imagine having a conflicted view is those who represented districts affected by 9/11 (like Hillary) because those Democrats in those areas were more gung ho on going to war.  

    Chicago was not affected by 9/11 except in the very broadest of measures (it was in the United States -- that's about as broad as you can get).  Obama was running for office and represented a liberal district.  It should have been very easy for him to speak out against war.  

    If anything, I think he would have had more problems if he had spoken FOR war given the liberal nature of his district.  


    Grace (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    you nail it every time in your comments!! I love the way you think and write. I second the idea of  you starting a nice blog.

    I would be signing up first thing ;-)


    Not significant enough in the Chicago area (5.00 / 7) (#187)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:21:05 AM EST
    to have been given much note by the Chicago media, however.

    He was a local politician giving a local speech in which he took a 'side' that was the same as his very anti-war district and the anti-war crowd he was talking to.  Not exactly Profiles in Courage.


    It was a pat political answer (4.50 / 2) (#127)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:20:51 AM EST
    designed to play up his opposition to the war.  It felt forced to me - and the gaffe in there was right out of the gate where he talked about the political risk to him before anything else.  

    I would have counseled him to present that very differently.  I would have had him say, "At the time, the majority of the people and leaders in this country were convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.  But I was not.  I felt it was my duty as an American to speak up.  My political career will never be more important that my country or the lives of those we send to fight for us."


    Yes tree, I had (none / 0) (#80)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:26:12 AM EST
    the exact same impression.

    I would HAVE (none / 0) (#22)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:19:37 AM EST
    to google/youtube that to believe it.  Man, that kind of statement is something the GOP could drive an 18 wheeler through.  Wonder how MoveOn and the Kos/HuffPo crowd would respond????



    Haven't found a transcript (none / 0) (#34)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:30:33 AM EST
    I agree that we need the exact words he said...because it is hard to believe he could say this ...He wasn't even in the Senate then.

    Someone else that saw it wrote in disbelief about it. There is a link above to one news-site writing this in their article.


    Here's a quote (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:01:04 AM EST
    from a transcript here.



    My apologies for the all-caps and the odd kerning. It was not an easy copy and paste.


    Experts???? Bwahahahaha. (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:10:13 AM EST
    I'm sure experts were lining up to speak to an Illinois state senator.

    I suspect that the only "experts" (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:27:15 AM EST
    he consulted were consulted about whether his speech would advance his political career or not.

    Rezko and Rev Wright (3.25 / 4) (#95)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:46:02 AM EST
    THOSE were his experts.  Now, if FOX gets to mediate a debate they should ask, "Senator Obama, who were these experts you met with prior to the war?"

    Hilfreakinglarious that would be.


    Not again? (none / 0) (#46)
    by RalphB on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:45:36 AM EST
    This time it's not a mispeaking, it's a bald faced lie.

    I'm sure it would have been gut-wrenching to vote against the war, when you weren't in the Senate and had no vote to cast.  He handed the GOP a big one, if they need it.


    RalphB (none / 0) (#52)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:50:44 AM EST
    I think that those two words you typed will be uttered throughout this election cycle regarding Obama gaffes:

    Not again?

    Man I hope there is some Super D up late right now making phone calls and saying to another Super D, "Are you believing this?!?"


    please see me comments below (none / 0) (#54)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:54:22 AM EST
    wrongly reported.

    Wrongly reported it seems (none / 0) (#53)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:52:34 AM EST
    See my new comment below.

    Excellent work (none / 0) (#57)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:58:48 AM EST
    Andy.  thanks for finding the transcript.  Not that it helps or changes my mind, but clarity is always nice.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#71)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:13:14 AM EST
    it helps. I agree with your comment that it doesn't change
    one's mind much ...

    Actually, didn't he recently (none / 0) (#69)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:11:59 AM EST
    vote against further funding of it?

    I could be wrong, but I have a vague recollection of hearing something like that.


    Yes but he wasn't (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:29:09 AM EST
    talking about that; besides that could hardly been his most
    gut-wrenching decision since almost all Dems in Senate voted NO on that bill.

    He was talking about his "opposition to the war" itself back in 2002.

    By the way he was not running for the US Senate yet.


    not trivial (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 04:14:50 AM EST
    By the way he was not running for the US Senate yet.

    I don't think that this is a trivial consideration.  The fact that he gave the speech to a sparsely attended anti-war rally on a college campus in his own district while running for re-election to the State legislature is simply not the same thing as taken an unpopular decision in the middle of a Senate election campaign.

    Obama is trying to grab a chapter in "Profiles in Courage II"...


    It's not trivial to be fair (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:11:22 AM EST
    According to the local paper, police estimated the crowd to be 5-10,000 at his 2nd speech, which was indeed after he'd announced his candidacy for the national Senate.

    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by frankly0 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:52:38 AM EST
    what second speech? When was this?

    And given that he had presumably already made a commitment in his "first" speech, what was he going to do -- come out in favor of the war? (I guess, being Obama, that could have happened, God knows).

    Certainly his first speech was in Oct 2002. He did not announce his candidacy for the US Senate until 2003. And bear in mind Illinois is the bluest state in the midwest, trending bluer. His fellow Democratic Senator, Dick Durbin voted against the resolution. The vast majority of the Illinois Congressional Delegation voted against it.

    From NPR:

    "My objections to the war in Iraq were not simply a speech," Obama said. "I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war." (Obama delivered the speech in October 2002; he did not officially declare his candidacy for the U.S. Senate until January).

    The history does not seem to jibe with Obama's politically convenient recollections.

    But rewriting history seems to be a basic and likely necessary tactic of Obama, his campaign, and his supporters.

    Much more debunking here.


    You just can't make an assertion like that (none / 0) (#189)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:24:38 AM EST
    without a link...evidence...indication...something besides his website...

    Why can't I make such an assertion? (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:38:56 AM EST
    Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000.

    One question I thought was interesting (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:10:42 AM EST
    Name the three smartest people you know.

    Obama:  Michelle, my grandmother, Teddy Kennedy

    McCain:  General Petraus, John Lewis (Democratic congressman from Georgia), Meg Whitman (CEO of eBay)

    Now I think that question says a whole lot about both men.  

    I thought I saw Meg Whitman (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:20:46 AM EST
    floated as a wild card VP pick by US News and World Report.

    And I find it hard to believe that "vote-against-MLK Day" McCain spends a lot of time with John Lewis.


    He's apologized for that. (none / 0) (#68)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:11:27 AM EST
    He also commended Lewis for his (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:14:52 AM EST
    courage in Selma in a speech he gave back in April.

    I give McCain Zero credit (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:56:11 AM EST
    WHen it comes to civil rights legislation and supporting black issues.  

    Yeah, one is appealing for you vote (5.00 / 4) (#176)
    by esmense on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:50:07 AM EST
    based on gooey sentiment. The other is hoping to communicate that he respects competence (including in people across the aisle and women).

    Which do you think is the stronger campaign tactic?


    Citing a Dem as one (none / 0) (#16)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:12:44 AM EST
    was brilliant on the part of McCain.  Gives him more of the credibility of "working both sides of the aisle".

    I wish that my candidate Cynthia McKinney was allowed to be part of the debates.


    The only better choice (none / 0) (#23)
    by Makarov on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:20:35 AM EST
    McCain could have made for the Dem was Bill Clinton.

    Not at a forum for evangelicals (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:49:04 AM EST
    I'm starting to admire her (none / 0) (#24)
    by catfish on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:20:37 AM EST
    though I know very little about her. But for her to be the Green candidate is something, tells me she is persistent and is not willing to go quietly. Ralph Nader was the Green candidate last time, that is something.

    I felt for a while (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:26:49 AM EST
    that I was wandering the political wilderness.  I started investigating the Greens. I love the Green's platform on labor, gay rights, women's rights and the environment.

    Cynthia McKinney, in her last official act as a congresswoman, introduced articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney.

    I. Love. That.


    Surely (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:11:10 AM EST
    all the talk shows tomorrow will be disecting this left, right, front and center.  I may have to get up and watch "This Week" if Ms Brazile is on there.

    I would love to hear her explain away Obama's lackluster performance against the one that was CERTAIN to lose by a landslide.

    Well, didn't see it - was watching (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:11:33 AM EST
    football and Olympics, which is probably what the rest of America was doing...

    I think that in a format where the candidates do not have to engage each other, there is not likely to be much in the way of surprises, and it sounds like there was nothing really of note from either one of them.

    Was glad I watched Phelps and his fellow swimmers make history, the playing of the anthem and the feeling of pride for my country and for the athletes who embodied the best of who we are - my eyes full and a lump in my throat - and don't imagine watching Obama and McCain would have been nearly as satisfying.

    hear hear! (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:15:32 AM EST
    I am right there with you!  Watching the athletes and hearing the anthem totally chokes me up.  National pride?  You bet.  The USA isn't perfect, but it's our home.

    Congrats to the USA swimteam and Phelps.  We are all so proud of each and every one of them!


    I just saw Obama (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Makarov on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:19:03 AM EST
    on the re-broadcast, as I tuned in an hour late live. Overall, he did better than I expected. He was a little long winded, a little cerebral, and he ducked the "when does life start" question, but that's impossible for anyone pro-choice to answer in front of that crowd.

    McCain hit a couple answers out of the park. Yes, this is his base, but I think he showed why this election is likely to be close. It shouldn't be, but, like in 2004, the Democratic party was determined to nominate the candidate most likely to lose.

    I think Obama did about as well as he could do tonight. I think Hillary would have done better.

    Winner: Obama Loser: Warren (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Ennis on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:08:39 AM EST
    Obama did what he wanted to do, which was to attract EV leaners with his thoughtful insights and personal reflections.

    McCain appeased his base to some extent, but those people aren't going going anywhere else.  However, at the same time he repelled the secular audience that tuned in, and confirmed for the EV leaners that he's yesterday's news.

    What's all the buzz about Rick Warren?  Anybody could have done a better job preparing and asking questions.

    Well, that's it then. The oracle has spoken. (4.63 / 11) (#76)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:17:52 AM EST
    No more reason to discuss. Let's all just take one final sip and head to bed.

    and on that note (4.50 / 8) (#89)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:41:27 AM EST
    good night to one and all on TL.

    Sorry but it looks like McCain won that little quasi-debate.

    Obama better get ta steppin'!  McCain is NOT Alan Keyes.


    My comment on the comments (5.00 / 16) (#85)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:29:36 AM EST
    I believe nobody thought Obama did very well, but many appeared to excuse him because of the circumstances.  Is this the best the Democratic Party can give voters?  I seems to me the Republican Party has put its best candidate to win this November.

    No your wrong (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:39:01 AM EST
    A lot of people thought he was great.  I personally love nuanced answers.  Generally speaking most hard questions a presidnet faces will have many sides, and the ability to analyze them and come up with an answer is something I look forward to in an Obama presidency.

    Nuanced does not mean ambiguous. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Burned on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:49:02 AM EST
    It doesn't matter what people who are (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:33:47 AM EST
    already voting for Obama, come hell or high water, think.

    The critical metric here is how the two came across to people who are either undecided or could be persuaded to switch sides.

    At this point it's silly to talk about how a candidate did in terms of people's opinions of 'good' or 'bad'; the only gauge is helped, hurt or did nothing either way in terms of votes.


    evangelicals 2, progressives 0 (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Little Fish on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:36:10 AM EST
    Any chance we can get a similar forum geared towards progressive issues? ? ?

    You all are laughing at me right now, aren't you?

    um (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:42:40 AM EST
    Yes, and let's make FISA the marquee subject. Let's see who can go furthest to the right.

    Speaking as a McCain supporter... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:51:55 AM EST
    ...I'd say one thing many of you in the TalkLeft community have underestimated, quite naturally, is how these performances went over on the Right.  Righties who have been highly skeptical about McCain - holding their noses to support him - were bowled over by his demeanor and by many of his specific answers, and were disgusted by Obama's gaffetastic responses on human rights for the unborn ("pay grade") and Clarence Thomas (insulting Thomas and struggling to swallow his own words when describing Thomas as having been too lacking in "exp"-erience(!)).  

    McCain didn't just please his base, he inspired and unified important sections of it to the greatest extent it's been inspired and unified since around 2003 or so.  No one's counting any unhatched chickens, but conservatives have, at least for now, also convinced themselves that Obama is as vulnerable as hoped, and that this year doesn't have to be anywhere near as disastrous as it looked just a few short weeks ago.  

    I'm not a McCain supporter (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by kempis on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:12:55 AM EST
    ..but from the bits I saw of the candidates' responses, I understand what you mean.

    I like McCain (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:08:20 AM EST
    though most of the things he talked about last night -- well, his position is way far right of mine.  I don't agree with many of his positions but he articulated them well and I respect the fact that he has chosen to take whatever stances he has.

    One thing I thought about after the debates last night:  It's quite remarkable that McCain, at the age of 55 or so (not sure what age exactly), decided to adopt a handicapped infant from another country...  That really speaks volumes about his personal values.  


    That was Cindy's decision. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:45:26 AM EST
    I don't think it was totally (4.50 / 6) (#144)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:58:06 AM EST
    Cindy's decision.  She asked John and he was okay with it too.  

    I posted something on an earlier thread about Cindy and how she likes to rescue animals.  No one responded to that post -- but I think she sounds like she's really a nice person.  And I don't think John is an evil ogre either.  

    I like people who want to rescue animals and people.  It just seems like the right thing to do.  


    She said she brought her back (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:12:38 AM EST
    from overseas without telling him. The first he knew about it was when she got off the plane. Not saying he couldn't have refused but that's not really the same as him "making a decision to adopt".
    I like those kind of people, too. Cindy seems good-hearted and she probably has rubbed off on him a bit. I don't think she'd stay married to him if he was a "sociopath" as a commenter insisted last night.

    It still says (3.50 / 2) (#167)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:34:41 AM EST
    a lot about him -- and her.  I think it's really great that they adopted their last daughter.  But it kind of floors me that he was okay with it since he was in his mid-50s.  That's pretty old to be taking on a new child.  

    I think they are probably both "good hearted."

    With McCain, I keep saying/thinking "actions speak louder than words" -- and I see a lot of good actions coming from McCain.  


    She also does a lot of charity work with (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:15:51 AM EST
    handicapped children.  Very little publicity.

    Speaking as someone who loathes McCain (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:14:59 AM EST
    and everything he stands for, I think your observations about how he increased support from the right last night are accurate. He came down intentionally and forcefully on all the big social conservative issues that he'd been skirting before.

    gut wrenching? (5.00 / 6) (#118)
    by kimsaw on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:22:53 AM EST
    so every body who was opposed to the war made a gut wrenching decision. Well as a person who was opposed to the war I wouldn't have exactly called my decision gut wrenching.

    Obama made a speech at an anti-war rally and he covered himself with not all wars are bad, but the Iraq War was a dumb. Though I agree with his stance, he did not or has not proven in more than one instance that he has the strength in his convictions.  Historically Obama sways whichever way the political winds need him to lean. His judgment isn't grounded in moral gut checks, if they were he would have never thrown his grandmother under the bus. Obama's choices are based on political calculation, hence his pandering to Christians, the anti-war contingent, turning his back on FISA and throwing Grandma where the tires live . He does it brazenly and without finesse. Obama's inability to take a substantive stance and stick to it makes me question his judgment and trustworthiness.

    In my judgement it makes good sense for me to say no to Obama. Gut wrenching decision no, mournful one yes, because this candidate is the best that the Dems are offering.

    Don't label me a McCain supporter, I'm not voting for him either, though last night I will offer I was impressed by his presentation.

    My vote for president doesn't have to happen, though for the first time in 30 years it will be gut wrenching choice to not pull the lever. Third party contenders are being considered.

    Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:30:32 AM EST
    Before you make that gut wrenching decision, please compare their answers about supreme court justices.

    comparing their answers? (5.00 / 6) (#170)
    by kimsaw on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:42:49 AM EST
    I know where they stand and I'm not a one issue voter especially when neither candidate has earned my trust. There are three branches of government and there is always work to do. I'm not basing my vote just on abortion rights or terrorism, I'm looking at the  whole picture and for me both these candidates lose.

    Supreme Court deals with a lot more than 1 issue (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:51:34 AM EST
    Yes it does. (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    And I don't want a Cass Sunstein type anywhere near it. The way I see it we are scr*wed no matter who wins the election.

    Look, the SCOTUS is (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:25:27 AM EST
    an important consideration but people are not one issue voters and BESIDES thetre is a reason why the President nominates but the SENATE confirms.
    I have written this many times: remember what Robert Bork. If the Senate would do its job and the Dems had more guts ... Remember who appointed Souter. So it is not black and white.

    I did not say anything was black and white! (none / 0) (#201)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:33:37 AM EST
    But I'm pretty damn well sure I would prefer President Obama's nominations to SCOTUS over those of President McCain.

    kimsaw (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:12:37 AM EST
    excellent comment; I agree with you.

    I think the people in Congress who HAD to cast a vote where the ones making gut-wrenching decisions.

    And if anyone argues that some VOTES where politically calculated then that applies to Obama's political calculations 1,000 times over.

    It seems a pretty calculated decision to be the
    "most gut wrenching decision" of his life.

    I could understand it in a POTUS sending men and women to war. But in a young pol that is rushing to the ladder of power and have nothing but his own
    ambition to escalate higher ??? Pretty lame; somehwat embarrassing I would say....


    Forum trivia- (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by magisterludi on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:40:45 AM EST
    Saddleback charged $500-2000 bucks a ticket, church members given first dibs. Almost all the audience were members.

    and probably politicos who could afford it (none / 0) (#158)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:16:45 AM EST
    I loved the Obama answer (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:48:59 AM EST
    To what is Americac's greatest moral failure- which was our insufficient help to the disadvantaged.

    Seek help at once! (5.00 / 10) (#159)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:17:15 AM EST
    This is such a highly conflicted post!  

    For one thing, this is a left-leaning blog -- so who cares if someone is gay or not?  Certainly not us!!  

    I don't think McCain cares about her sexual orientation either!  Do you have some sort of personal knowledge like he tried to hit on her or something?  Who cares if she's gay?  

    If you want to scream about Meg Whitman being gay, you should go to some of the right wing blogs -- not here.  

    Maybe she believes (5.00 / 5) (#183)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:08:27 AM EST
    that McCain secretly supports gay marriage despite all evidence to the contrary and will morph into a champion of equal marriage rights once he's president.

    Perhaps McCain's just been faking on his sexual orientation stances all these years, he's just waiting to actually be elected so his real, secret stances can be revealed!


    I'm less sure. (none / 0) (#168)
    by jpete on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:35:32 AM EST
    I don't support outing someone, but supposing it is correct to say she is a lesbian, then her sexual orientation means she is subject to laws that threaten the quality of her life and  she is denied the protection of others that might enhance the quality of her life.  That is in contrast to heterosexuals whose sexuality does not disqualify them from marriage and who don't get fired because of their sexuality.  Further, she is actively working to support someone who will succeed, if he does, in part because of bigotry against people with her sexuality.  

    Her presence in McCann's campaign raises big questions about exploitation and  morality that are very serious.  Just how those questions should be framed depends on too many factors to maintain here, but the idea of McCann happily limiting the rights of one of his top advisors deserves to be make public.  That she is helping to win over people who think she would be better off dead really is important.  


    You are aware of the (5.00 / 5) (#171)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:43:21 AM EST
    Log Cabin republicans? Mary Cheney?

    While, as a lesbian, I may not understand why they are in the party I do respect their political opinions and am well aware of hte fact that people do not always base their decisions, political or otherwise, on their sexual orientation.


    It's no different (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    than calling a black person who supports McCain a race traitor.  I'm not into that kind of talk.  No one is morally obligated to support a particular party.

    Do you really need that offensive (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:18:55 AM EST
    last phrase to make your point?

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by JThomas on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:45:28 AM EST
    did exactly what he needed to do to attract independents like myself. McCain simply spouted the type of answers(drilling,drilling,drilling) that mimiced his stump speech and did not even address questions seriously. I am sure that specific audience in Orange County prefers what they heard from him but in the wider spectrum of catholics like myself, he failed miserably.
    I was impressed with Obama's honesty and willingness to go into this venue where few democrats have ever ventured. McCain did pander to his base so he did what he needed to but Obama is even more clearly contrasted with the Bush/McCain perspective on choice and military intervention than ever. This independent is now leaning to Obama.

    You say: (5.00 / 7) (#178)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:52:52 AM EST
    I was impressed with Obama's honesty and willingness to go into this venue where few democrats have ever ventured.

    Have the candidates running for president ever been invited to answer questions in a setting like this?  

    Obama lost points when he refused further debates after losing in PA.  He's also backed away from townhall appearances with McCain, hasn't he?

    So he goes to church and answers questions in a one-on-one setting.  Big deal.

    Not impressive at all.  Safe.


    1st of all (5.00 / 9) (#188)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:24:12 AM EST
    "you people?"  

    WE people here are not dillusional.  Just because someone said they would vote McCain is not taking leave of their senses.

    Obama and McCain agree on FISA
    Obama and McCain both voted to fund the war.
    Obama and McCain both agree to offshore drilling.

    Big issues for progessives, so, tell me, where does the dillusion kick in...or is that above your pay grade?

    ugh (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:26:18 AM EST
    DELUSIONAL...i need spell check!

    Dear pennypacker (5.00 / 7) (#196)
    by DFLer on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    I find it hard to take serious any comment that starts with "you people...." and continues with generalities , as in "are all...[this or that]
    and "people here..."

    This strikes me as lazy, one-size-fits-all thinking. Speaking for me only, you would be better served, and I would listen more, if you were to address your remarks to specific posts, comments, and/or posters and drop the wide, indiscriminate brush.

    Wow, that is scary (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:13:08 AM EST
    Outing someone because you don't like their politics.  Nice.

    Maybe she supports McCain because he says what he believes... while Obama is saying what he thinks we want to hear?

    Let's see Obama has stated that marriage should be left to the states and generally seems to accept the concept that it is between a man and a woman.  Exactly what is the good in his beliefs?  Or was he just saying it because of the audience he was in?

    I like Obama, and I am getting tired of his equivocating on EVERY issue.  Just take a position... some people might not like it... deal with it.  He is starting to act like he thinks that he must really be The One to everybody.

    Yes, Obama is really starting to tick me off.

    Yes, McCain was very good (4.53 / 13) (#3)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:53:19 PM EST
    I'm not sure what Obama said.  

    I am starting to think that McCain could run away with the election................the polls are starting to turn, big time.  

    Little Timmy Kaine isn't going to be enough to be save the democrats.  

    sorry i missed it (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Lil on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:59:19 PM EST
    but your comment is scary.

    I find it scary too! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:29:19 AM EST
    I kinda felt that way too (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:29:10 AM EST
    I'm not sure what Obama said.

    And I listened to him twice!


    Do you have a link (none / 0) (#36)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:32:23 AM EST
    to his full interview??



    I will be on CNN tonight at 8 pm - repeat (none / 0) (#147)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:00:36 AM EST
    Kaine is on Meet the Press.... (5.00 / 8) (#129)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:28:55 AM EST
    ...he's likeable enough.

    The only problem is that he is such a dewy-eyed Obama lover that he can't handle tough questions, at least not in my opinion. Plus he talks about unity while bashing Strickland and other Clinton primary supporters. I think that Obama needs a former Clinton supporter (or even Clinton herself) as a vp because these hardcore Obama people too easily fall into the Clinton-bashing trap that the media will continue to lay out for them and it makes the Democratic Party look weak.


    Doing what?! (5.00 / 9) (#133)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:34:18 AM EST
    Bashing Strickland - the governor of one the swingiest swing states?  Is this part of the master plan to win the White House?

    Is Teh Stupid contagious or what?


    I'm a Democrat but.... (4.00 / 1) (#213)
    by 1980Ford on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:49:43 PM EST
    Reelecting Bush/Cheney would be better than electing the indecisive Obama. The next best thing is electing McCain no matter who his veep is.

    Oh, and don't read this:

    McCain Campaign: Comment Trolls Wanted

    Failure of First Marriage (3.50 / 2) (#215)
    by bison on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:52:35 PM EST
    I was surprise to learn that the most the most gut-wrenching decision McCain ever had to make was not leaving his sick wife.  She had be faithful and waited for his return from war.  McCain said his greatest personal moral failing was the "failure of my first marriage."   He did not explain why the marriage failed.  Warren, who was critical of former Sen. John Edward's ability to lead after he admitted he had an affair, did not take this question to McCain.

    Life (3.50 / 2) (#217)
    by bison on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    When Obama was asked when does life begin he said, "Whether you're looking at it from a theoretical or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade." I read Obama answer as not seeing himself as being omnipotent- his answer was humble.  He was leaving that to a greater power !His response was authentic. He sought  to answer the question honestly and personally.  Whereas McCain responded with patently campaign rhetoric.  He simply said that life begins at conception.  McCain's answers is trapped in campaign jargoned.

    Wisdom (2.00 / 1) (#218)
    by bison on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Take the very  first question Warren posed to both candidates: who are three people you'll depend on for wisdom in the presidency.  How does McCain depend on Patraeus, Lewis, and Whitman, for wisdom.  He might admire them as people, but to depend on them for wisdom is quite different.  Did McCain not understand the question?  Obama's answer came across as more authentic  or was a very personal.  He talked about his wife and grandmother and other people who have held elected political positions.

    I was happy (none / 0) (#27)
    by Makarov on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:23:32 AM EST
    Obama didn't throw anything else under the bus, but he managed to do it. I honestly expected him to cave with federal funding and discrimination by faith-based organizations.

    General Petraeus and Meg Whitman (none / 0) (#41)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:38:52 AM EST
    When Mccain went into his exaggerated praise of Petraeus, I thoght OMG do you think he might name Petraeus as his VP running mate?

    Meg Whitman, thought the same thing, but nah, couldn't be, could it?

    Couldn't be.  It seemed like a trick question, designed to get both candidates to hint at their VP choice.

    Petraeus is not much different than Clark (none / 0) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 05:41:07 AM EST
    Only he found himself under orders from a different administration.

    Petraeus is, I know real progressives don't like him, but he's just as good as Clark on the issues he addresses.

    He was just forced into a political context by the Bush folks.

    And so all the politically motivated people made their decisions about him accordingly.

    If Obama forces a military commander into a military context during his admin, it will only prove my worst fears about him.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 05:43:58 AM EST
    Delete this:

    If Obama forces a military commander into a military context during his admin, it will only prove my worst fears about him.

    Add this:

    If Obama forces a military commander into a POLITICAL context during his admin, it will only prove my worst fears about him.


    Petraeus is not "as good" as (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:52:03 AM EST
    Clark in my opinion when it comes to soldier work.  Clark ran an incredibly tight ship and incredibly tight rules of engagement when commanding the Bosnia/Kosovo conflicts.....Petraeus in Iraq....not so much.  Clark fought with his command over things to the point that they now try to use this against him in campaigns even though the things that he fought for worked extra super well, he fought like hell with commanders though over what he thought was right.....Petraeus, not so much.

    I believe they are dealing (none / 0) (#148)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:01:01 AM EST
    with different situations on the ground too though.  

    They are both intelligent, well-trained individuals.  I think they would both do good wherever they were sent.  


    They certainly were dealing with different (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:05:49 AM EST
    situations.  It's only my opinion, but if Clark had taken over the Iraq War when Petraeus did we would be in a very different place there today and one that is more desirable to a majority of Americans and Iraqis.

    Don't think for a minute either (none / 0) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:08:07 AM EST
    that under Clark the rules of engagement in Iraq wouldn't have become super tight either.  He believes in that stuff right to the marrow of his bones and soldiers are soldiers, you are there to serve and you can be endangered doing so at times.....that is your job.

    Sen. Obama also injected Sam (none / 0) (#43)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:41:20 AM EST
    Nunn's name into the conversation. I wonder if that was a hint into the vp?

    Nunn-starter (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:45:42 AM EST
    (i know too obvious but i couldn't resist)

    You're right (none / 0) (#48)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:46:08 AM EST
    You definitely would not say that about Obama

    Anecdotal observation- (none / 0) (#108)
    by magisterludi on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:20:22 AM EST
    Hasn't the gap between the rich and the poor widened with the rise of the Evangelical Right?

    Seems Pharisee Right would be more appropriate. Definitely not down with Jesus.

    as a faith forum (none / 0) (#112)
    by TruthMatters on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:55:35 AM EST
    McCain will let down alot of people of faith, he didn't even mention God or Jesus once, he best answer was the story about the guard making a cross on the ground and it being just 2 Christians worshiping.

    other then that, he was a Republican not a Christian, sure to alot of you here you won't see the difference, but Obama knows the difference which is why he is reaching out, and alot of people who tuned in NOT for a political forum, but to hear them talk about their faith.

    McCain showed that he is like everyone politician and the reason I am not a republican, they don't seem genuine they seem to only be using it to score political points.

    sure that will help with  McCain's base, but they are his base the fact he is having to do something like this in August to shore up his base speaks volumes.

    but he will continue to have problems with independents and leaners.

    alot of us weren't tuning in to hear politicians, we want to hear 2 men speak about their faiths.

    Republicans will be Happy with McCains answers, but the Democratic party will be getting more Christians voting democrat in the fall

    Not I. (5.00 / 11) (#120)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:31:48 AM EST
    I feel a sense of repulsion when I think that in today's political environment that candidates are called upon to talk about their "faith".

    It feels like an extreme violation of privacy.

    It also feel like a violation of the constitution - and constitutionally guaranteed rights to privacy when it comes to religious beliefs.

    Speaking of Christianity, Christ had a few things to say about it:

    "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.

    But you, when you pray go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is on the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly."
     - Matthew 6:5-6

    Well, Christ. You've got some pretty radical views.
    We'll get back to you.


    You sound like (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:18:01 AM EST
    You have been going to some Black liberation theology churches?  I used to go to church in College with a buntch of friends who were Christian.  Intially it was to hear the music, but then I realized that Jesus was one REVOLUTIONARY dud.  Never could get into him being the son of god, but the words are trully amazing.

    To this independent, (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by kimsaw on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:51:52 AM EST
    McCain came across very well. He seemed genuine in his faith without being exploitive. I'm not saying he didn't pander, both of them did.  I wanted to listen to two candidates speak to the issues and how their faith affected them.

    Obama has been on a mission to prove his religious creds and to me that comes off as disingenuous. At times even counter productive to his Dem values. His gospel tour  with his anti-gay pastor is the evidence that comes to mind.  Obama's 12 page spread on his Christianity is just a  marketing tool. If you live in faith, you shouldn't have to advertise. If you want to the president in a purple America, then you say your choice of religion doesn't matter, Muslims should be shown the same respect as Christians. Saying Jesus is your savior doesn't make you a Christian, but living by Jesus's words does. If words matter than listening and ignoring hate speech  in church for 20 yrs says a whole lot about the man and his faith in my judgment.


    this just tells me (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by TruthMatters on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:52:48 AM EST
    you have never actually listened to a full rev. Wright sermon.

    because the only way someone can say its hate speech is to cite the fox news soundbite, not any of his sermons in actual context.


    excuse me there is no EXCUSE (5.00 / 13) (#166)
    by kimsaw on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:33:20 AM EST
    for the hate talk from the good Reverend's mouth. I can respect Wright's leading  good works on behalf of the impoverished, but I don't respect his political presentation.  I'm not going to praise hate no matter in what frame of reference you would like to put it in.  Is Obama ignorant about what is hateful and what is not or is he only claiming to be when he needs to?

    Is referencing Fox News and sound bites the only way you can defend the indefensible?  Obama and Wright don't get a pass because WORDS MATTER.


    I watched parts of the forum (none / 0) (#165)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:31:36 AM EST
    and what I saw I thought he did well. While his comments on abortion were more middle, I also happpen to believe what he said.....we have to find away to make abortions safe, rare and available. That he said he supports Choice is significant. There were a few other points that I saw where he did well also. In addition the audience appeared to like him.

    He is unexperienced, did not recognize the misogyny  
    during the primaries and, well, I can go on an on.
    Fair is fair and I don't think he was bad at all.

    I agree with your post (none / 0) (#191)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:25:33 AM EST
    I just think he okay with the questions asked.

    Correction (none / 0) (#198)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:31:09 AM EST
    'did' okay with the questions asked.

    C' on.... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:26:48 AM EST

    Tom Coburn??? Discuss. (none / 0) (#211)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:26:06 AM EST

    Who is more right (none / 0) (#212)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:31:52 AM EST
    McCain proved he is a better Right Wing Conservative that Obama. I don't see how this forum hurts Obama with his base - or even Moderates for that matter. The abortion question alone very clearly shows where McCain stands. And it is awfully right of center.

    Stump Speech (none / 0) (#214)
    by bison on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:51:09 PM EST
    Warren intent was to ask blunt questions and, at one point, playfully warned Obama: "Don't give me your stump speech on these."  I never heard him give that warning to McCain.  Mc Cain did not openly discuss his faith.  Repeatedly, Mc Cain gave his stump speech.  There was not anything introspective about his answers.  Even his war stories were canned.    While Obama quoted a Biblical proverb and spoke at length about his faith as a "source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis."  None of this was forthcoming from McCain.

    When McCain was asked what  his faith meant to him, McCain said it "means I'm saved and forgiven." He referenced the works of his Southern Baptist church in Phoenix, and his reliance on prayer during his captivity in Vietnam.  He never flushed out the answer.  Warren gave him a pass.

    Judges (none / 0) (#216)
    by bison on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:54:22 PM EST
    When asked which sitting Supreme Court justice he would not have nominated, Obama named first Thomas and then  Scalia, saying he disagreed with both ideologically and that Thomas had not been a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time" of his nomination.  He did speak to Thomas's experience.  Obama  attacked  him on his lack of strong intellectual intuitiveness  as a jurist. His criticism of Scalia and Roberts was starkly different. It was not on their intellectual capacity. His vote against  Roberts sprang from a concern about maintaining  a balance of power between the three branches of government.  His response was authentic. He sought  to answer the question honestly and personally.  Whereas McCain responded with patently campaign rhetoric.  He simply said that he would oppose any judge that legislates from the bench.  This was not a thought wrenching answer