Home › Elections › Elections Opinion
Showdown at Saddleback Church goes to McCain
ELECTIONS '08
Check out our one stop for all the information and news you need to be ready for to cast your vote.
Election Central »
Elections stories » Star endorsements »
STORY TOOLS
More from Elections Opinion
While normal people were out having fun Saturday night, your diligent columnist was dutifully watching Barack Obama and John McCain answer the Rev. Rick Warren's questions at Saddleback Church. The event was worth watching — and for me yielded three conclusions.
First, Warren should moderate one of the fall presidential debates. His queries were simple but probing. He was fair to both candidates, his manner was relaxed but serious, and he didn't go for the "gotcha" questions. And his procedure of asking virtually identical questions to both candidates paid off. It allowed us to see them give revealingly different answers to the same question.
Second, it was McCain's night. Obama made no big mistakes. But his tendency to somewhat windy generalities meant he wasn't particularly compelling. McCain, by contrast, was crisp, and his anecdotes colorful. Now I'm not entirely unbiased, so I don't quite trust my initial judgment. But it was confirmed Sunday.
NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported that "the Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context. What they're putting out privately is that McCain may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama."
Third, Obama and McCain really do have different "worldviews," to use Warren's term. Perhaps the most revealing moment was the two candidates' response to a question about evil. Yes, evil — that negation of the good that we seem not to have moved beyond. Warren asked whether evil exists and if it does, "do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?"
Obama and McCain agreed evil exists and couldn't be ignored. But then their answers diverged. Obama said that "we see evil all the time" — in Darfur, on the streets of our cities, in child abusers. Such evils, he continued, need to be "confronted squarely." And while we can't "erase evil from the world," we can be "soldiers" in the task of confronting it when we see it.
But, Obama added, "Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility" as we confront evil. Why? Because "a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil."
After all, "just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good."
It's nice to see a liberal aware of the limits of good intentions. But here as elsewhere, Obama stayed at a high level of abstraction. It would have been interesting if Warren had asked a follow-up question: Where in particular has the United States in recent years perpetrated evil in the name of confronting evil?
Hasn't the overwhelming problem been, rather, a reluctance to effectively confront evil ? McCain appears to think so. Unlike Obama, he took the question about evil to be in the first instance about Sept. 11. McCain asserted that "of course, evil must be defeated," and he put "radical Islamic extremism," al-Qaida in particular, at the top of his to-defeat list. In this context, he discussed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and concluded by mentioning "the young men and women who are serving this nation in uniform."
So, while Obama talked of confronting evil, McCain spoke of defeating it. Obama took the view that evil is generally abroad in the world; McCain focused on radical Islam and Sept. 11.
Obama claimed that all of us must be metaphorical "soldiers" against evil; McCain paid tribute to actual American soldiers. And he couldn't resist saying again that if he has to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell to get him and bring him to justice, he'll do so.
Warren remarked that he wanted to help us understand Obama's and McCain's different worldviews. He accomplished his purpose.
— William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard and writes a weekly column or The New York Times.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 19, 2008 at 1:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe, someday, Obama will reach that "pay grade".
Posted by nelsonknows on August 19, 2008 at 1:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The real winner seemed to be Rev. Rick Warren who showed genuine non-partisanship, (now watch leftists go berserk with that comment).
John McCain took a step toward winning my vote, (now, if McCain will only fire Juan "La Raza" Hernandez).
Obama again showed his rancor for blacks who do not shill for the left in his distaste for Judge Clarence Thomas and in his answer, almost put foot in his mouth all the way to his hip, almost.
Posted by laurarmc on August 19, 2008 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Winner: Rick Warren, of course, whose intention was to distance his church from the religious right, and reclaim some of the public dialogue.
McCain was in front of an evangelical audience, got to say FIGHT a lot, talk about being a POW, and pretend that no one need pay taxes and everybody can be wealthy. (yawn) Goes over well with the people you'd expect it to.
Obama got the opportunity to answer thoughtfully for an hour. He showed authenticity, humility, grasp of nuance, and a mind sharper than a razor.
In a campaign season where the major them against him is "we don't know him" or "he isn't one of us", net win for the democratic side any time he gets a chance to speak openly.
Posted by ken10 on August 19, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/1...
Posted by allblacks on August 19, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He can be as "nuanced" as he wants but this was a pretty straight forward question. If you are pro-abortion say so. Just say the mother's rights take precedence if that's what you mean.
Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”
Posted by bbbdugout on August 19, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
remember - separation of church and state - get the Rev. out of there - don't tell me he should monitor another debate - he doesn't represent all of the religions - and McCain can't answer any questions spontanenously - as far as I'm concerned, my religion or if I choose no religion is my business and I'll tell you now, Kristol, butt out of it
Posted by Drew on August 19, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting TV. Really looking forward for some real debate where McCain may have to actually face facts, his record, and stop hiding behind fear and smear. Let the vetting begin!
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/2...
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/...
http://therealmccain.com/
Posted by sslocal on August 19, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Looked like a pretty fair forum to me. It was very informative in providing a look into both candidates stand on various issues.
Now, if we could get them both into a townhall type debate we would learn even more.
Posted by nannyfo1 on August 19, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bbbdugout, you may want to go back and reread the bill of rights. There is no "seperation of church and state". There is an amendment, the 1st, that prevents congress from making laws regarding the establishment of a particular religion or the free expression thereof. Congress passed no laws regarding this debate, so there is really no problem. Second, if there was a problem, why would we want to "get the Rev. out of there". It was in his church. The candidates were guests of the church, not the other way around.
Posted by bugmenot on August 19, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven." Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.
Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?
He was asked "if evil exists." His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to "the gates of hell." That was it.
He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.
He no longer allows reporters unfettered access to him aboard the "Straight Talk Express" for a reason.
Posted by allblacks on August 19, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bugmenot-Get your own lines and leave the McCafferty quotes on CNN.
As for separation maybe Pelosi needs some help there:
"Obama was introduced at the dinner by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader God has blessed us with at this time."
Posted by nelsonknows on August 19, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bbbdugout, you mean the Separation Clause that was introduced in 1947 Everson v Board of Education? A clause introduced because of an out of context phrase taken from the Danbury Letters, an 1801-1802 correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists Church Association. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, where the State's Church was Catholic and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson replied that there was a "Wall of Separation" between the State of Connecticut and the State's Church provided by the First Amendment the phrase "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature", being the key phrase.
This is actually a portion of my Master Thesis to which I hope clarifies the subject.
As for Rev. Warren, explain how exactly Rev. Warren is a member of a State's or Federal Government?
bbbdugout, have you ever BOTHERED to read the First Amendment to the Constitution?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So please explain how Rev. Warren is a member of Congress and violating the "separation of church and state". This was a free and open forum to which NO ONE was required to participate.
Posted by Scapegoat on August 19, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I found Obama's responses rather winded and over nuanced. His style leaves me feeling that he will be bowled over by more aggressive politicians and world leaders. He ALMOST stated Justice Thomas didn't have enough "experience" for the Supremes. I think it is he, who does not have enough experience to be POTUS. 143 days in the Senate, that's pretty slim pickens.
Posted by mikeb6804 on August 19, 2008 at 11:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some of you seem to begrudge the candidates' appearance in front of conservative evangelists. Hate to say this, but they also have a voice in our political process, just as much as the fools who keep arguing for separation of church and state although they may not recognize it when they see it. I received an interesting mail the other day which showed the preambles to the constitutions of the various states. Maybe you all should look them up. They separatists would die.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 20, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mike, exactly such as the preamble to the California Constitution;
"We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution."
Illinois;
"We, the People of the State of Illinois - grateful to
Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty
which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing
upon our endeavors - in order to provide for the health,
safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative
and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality;
assure legal, social and economic justice; provide
opportunity for the fullest development of the individual;
insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense;
and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves
and our posterity - do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the State of Illinois."
New York;
"WE, THE PEOPLE of the State of New York, grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its
blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION."
Just to name a few of the many State's Constitutions.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.