Thoughts on the Rick Warren Forum
Unfortunately, I came in late to the broadcast, and didn’t make it back in time for a couple questions, but I was able to see a majority of it and was able to twitter a few notes from my seat. See you after the jump…
The Questions
The first thing I noticed was the wording of the "evil" question. This wasn’t a question about the fight against good versus evil in a general sense. Warren asked pretty clearly if you defeat or negotiate with evil, which I have to say, sounds like the debate that’s brewed between the candidates about whether you sit down and hold talks with Iran or whether you give them a raspberry and invade. So, while I thought both answers to this question were good, I thought the while the question was perhaps not biased toward a specific candidate, it was pretty biased toward the current world situation.
Second, I thought Obama could have handled the hiring on faith-based initiatives question better. McCain was much more direct with his answer, which really worked in this situation, and is going to resonate with an audience of that sort. Obama beat around the bush, with hems and haws.
As for which justices they would have not nominated, here is one point where I thought Obama shined. Explanation in great detail is necessary for this kind of question, since everybody is worried about what kind of judges both candidate would nominated during a presidency. Obama gave names followed by a good argument to back them up, and I thought his explanation on why he would not have nominated John Roberts was very well done. McCain, on the other hand, named names, and then kind of left it at that, and started on a spiel about judicial activism. I thought that was a little weak. Obama too spun off into executive power (the liberal version of ‘judicial activism’), but only after lengthy response to Warren’s question.
Finally, on the ‘what number do you define as rich’, I thought Obama was pretty upfront here, and I must congratulate him for it. Anyone who’s paying attention should note that McCain’s "raise taxes on $40,000" thing is now blown out of the water. He gave some straight talk (if I might borrow McCain’s moniker) on the issue. McCain, meanwhile, beat around the issue, talking about, "even being rich doesn’t necessarily make you happy" and such. Then he gives what sounds pretty much like an arbitrary number, to sound like he’s answering the question. I thought this was McCain’s weakest answer tonight.
How They Answered Those Questions
Explanation wise, this was Obama’s night. He gave long, often policy oriented explanations on his positions. McCain often gave lots of stump-speech sounding answers, which are pretty sound-bitable. Obama was simply more nuanced in his answers. He often gave a position, and backed it up with a lengthy argument. Of course, the con to this was that they didn’t get to as many answers. More on that in a second.
Stylistically, this was McCain’s night. He sounded a lot more energetic, and it showed when he answered a lot of his first answers quickly, and I applaud Warren for politely calling him on it. McCain was also spoke more directly to the audience, which I think might resonate with the more than Obama’s 1-on-1 discussion style. Obama also averted his eyes a lot more. You could tell which answers he felt more comfortable asking because he was wide eyed and never averted his eyes on some of his best answers. Even though McCain was stump-speechy, he never averted his eyes, and more so, kept them squared on the audience.
Finally, Warren jumped a couple questions during Obama’s portion for the sake of time. I am a little disappointed that he jumped the question on privacy. It would have been a lot better to hear something on that from him than the religious persecution question, which neither McCain nor Obama really answered.
So, who do I think won? Well, McCain had some good answers, and so did Obama. Likewise, Obama was better in explaining himself and becoming personal with the questions, but McCain was better stylistically, and sounded a lot more energetic and reached out to the viewing audience by looking at them.
I’m calling it a tie.
I disagree.
If there ever was such a great scientific experiment in judging who did better, this was clearly McCain’s big night.
And I’m not saying that because I like McCain’s positions, I disagreed with him on a number of things. I am pro-choice for example. I don’t really care about the Gay Marriage issue. And I support Stem cell research.
However, John McCain’s responses were dead on, they resonated with the crowd, he got much more applause and excitement.
I forgot to cover the stem cell response, but while both see the issue differently, the end answers were the same: If there’s a way to avoid this issue entirely, lets do it.
And like I said, I think McCain looked better tonight, was more excited, and yes, resonated with the crowd more. But, people complain that the biggest thing Obama doesn’t do is explain where he stands. McCain was more stump-speechish in his answers, and Obama spent more time explaining himself.
Obama’s had a lot of "excite the crowd" speeches. So, I thought it was good he explained himself. McCain’s had a lot of "lets explain this" speeches where he hasn’t come out as particularly exciting, so he did well on that tonight.
They were able to supplement themselves by focusing on where they’ve been weak before and not letting that get at them tonight. This is why I think they tied.
Michael,
I thought Obama’s answer on the justices he wouldn’t have supported was weak, because his answer basically came down to: I wouldn’t appoint them because I disagree with them. If Obama could have given his answer in which he talked about whether these people were the right justices, he would have answered it right. It was a lot simpler for McCain, because he could quote the bible of strict constructionism. But the way Obama gave a rationale for his answer was not acceptable.
McCain was the clear winner tonight. Obama, once again, showed why he is unelectable. Obama’s answers reveal him to be a shifty politician, and THE candidate in the race that is all about symbolism, with little or no substance. I’m an Independent. I’m voting for John McCain!
I like Obama the best. He wants to unite the nation. McCain will just push on with what we already have. Which is not good.
Joyce, care to provide some elaboration? Other than the old "Obama is change and McCain is Bush’s third term," that is.
Oh c’mon, only a die hard Obama supporter could few that meeting last night as a tie. Who appeared as the stronger, more decisive leader? Easy one…McCain. I like Obama, he should maybe get his own talk show, but this forum was a great way for McCain to highlight his vast experience, sharp thinking and quick wit. for ex: The question on which candidate has reached across the aisle, even if it meant offending his own party, high-lighted that. Obama has nothing really to show for this. Dem or Reb, it’s clear that McCain is the better overall candidate. Mike, I think Warren was actually more annoyed with Obama’s long answers, even motioning the cut sign. McCain was refreshing and Warren had time to ask him additional questions. I do think that Obama’s christianity was clear and very authentic. I’m sure that resonated with that audiance. McCain was weak in this regard. but sorry Michael, no tie here. this is going down in history as McCain’s night. It will only make Obama better prepared for their first debate in Sept. This is going to be a tight race for sure.
I think that if Obama had decided to deliver his "stump" speeches he would have blown McCain away, but being that he was reminded several times not to do so I think he was trying to think to hard on how not to come across as a canned responses. While McCain may have came across better, his responses were definitly canned. McCain was in a conservative comfort zone, and the whole idea of the forum was designed to put Obama in the hot seat and make him publicly clarify his views on faith, and on this topic, I think Obama hit it dead on, anyone who had any kind of doubts about him being muslim (which shouldn’t matter anyways since we live in a country that prides itself on RELIGOUS FREEDOM) if they were listening that was comfortably put to rest. I have listened to both candidates on several occasions, and I have always admired the way Obama has come across as being sincere in his speeches. Mc Cain always sounds rehearsed. I will go with the it was a tie, if we are going on a point system, but on what they gained from the viewers I think Obama had the most gain with removing religous doubt.
The notion that a person is shifty because he/she gives intelligent, well thought out answers to serious questions, and who demonstrates depth of understanding by being able to see nuance in complicated matters is is beyond incredulous. Likewise, the notion that a person is a straight talker and can be trusted merely because he gives simple, two word answers to complicated questions which are canned and rehearsed, and sees things only in black and white is also a stunningly moronic statement. Agree or disagree politically with whomever you choose. But one of the reasons the US no longer is the preeminent world power it once was is just this type of thinking. Simple answers to complex matters. Bumper sticker slogans as policy. God help us!
I was amazed at McCain’s performance. He was so on top of his game and well rehearsed. He did not have to pause a even a second for a single question. And his stories and anecdotes were right on the tip of his tongue. I have never seen him with such complete and total recall, no matter the question. He was so on top of his game that on a couple of occassions he began answering the questions before they were asked. Now that is being on top of your game.
RSB
Do you live in America? What makes America the Power is because we are able to express our ideas freely among other things – too many to list. What is preeminent mean any way?
The fact that we can think should cause all of us to celebrate even in the most trying of times. I am proud to be an American!
My impression was that McCain did very well, answering questions directly and without hemming and hawing. Obama, on the other hand, soent a lot of time looking downward, and doing his best to figure to frame his answer so that it would appeal to both conservatice Christians and his far-left supporters. He did not succeed, and came off as pandering, cagey, and cornered.
At least there were very few of the softball questions usually asked. I don’t think we need any more, "Senator Obama, what’s your favorite flavor ice cream?" questions. The format for the candidates was fine, but I would have liked some follow-up questions. It’s not helpful to the voters to allow Obama to get away with saying he would consider restrictions on late-term abortions if there are exceptions for the "mother’s health." To many, that response almost makes him sound reasonable. In fact, Obama’s definition of "health of the mother" includes her "mental health." That’s the game liberals play… have the bill include protection for the mother’s "mental health," which can mean just about anything, and thus allows abortions to continue when the woman is physically healthy but would be "emotionally unhealthy" if she had to care for a child." Many people will be angry that the truth won’t come out until after it’s too late to change their vote.Pastor Warren should have known better than to have allowed himself, and the American voter, to be duped like that. If you can’t come up with your own tough questions, try the list at: http://www.colony14.net
Excuse me for asking this, but I believe the American public MIGHT
have been duped by Pastor Rick, who looks silly in that goatee of his,
and he could lose some weight too……but what I am talking about is
this: you didn’t mention it and nobody else, but I have a very strong
suspicion that the questions that Pastor Rick asked the two candidates
were GIVEN to both Obama and McCain in advance of the
“show”……..why do I suspect this? because at one point Obama said
“I cheated here and did some research before hand…..I actually
looked at this idea ahead of time….”he said this in response at first to one of Rick’s question around the
45 minute time….and CNN made a major gaffe: on the news scrawl below the screen, the
news editor who is obviosuly illiterate wrote for all the world to see
on CNN: “What is the greatest moral failure in your LIVE?shoulda been LIFE? it was never corrected during Obama’s half……way
to go, CNN!but the main questuon here, sir, is WHERE THE QUESTIONS GIVEN TO THE
TWO MEN BEFORE THE SO CALLED FORUM? I believe they were. I am going to
ask Rick right now and see what he says….when Rick also said “we are the most blessed nation on earth”…again
he is so full of it. Other nations are also blessed, sir Rick,
American is not NUMBER ONE in BLESSEDness, this is a huge mistkae of
arrogant overweight ammericans like Pastor Rick, who is a brainwashed
mindcontrolled robot of an ancient religion that is completely based
on myth and legend, there is NO JESUS at all, and yet he gets away
with this crap…..sad in this day and age..but that’s America for
you, LIVE!
I guess for some of you guys, Barack Obama just can’t make mistakes.
If he says there are 57 states… "Well he’s just tired… from the road" convenient.
If Barack Obama says "My uncle saved Auschwitz"… they say "Well he obviously … obviously… meant Great-Uncle and Buchenwald, he just got the names confused that’s all." How convenient.
If Barack Obama says he wants to meet with leaders without preconditions, liberals say "Ronald Reagan did!" Yes but that WAS with preconditions. But yet again, how convenient.
If Barack Obama shifts his position constantly and doesn’t take a firm stance on any issue… "Well that’s just his intelligence, he considers all sides to everything." — I’m sorry, but that’s just too convenient.
The real inconvenient truth for Barack Obama is that, Obama makes mistakes too, and you don’t have to be his lawyer and excuse his mistakes for him. You don’t have to pretend like he is the next JFK or the last hope.
The more you excuse Barack Obama for his mistakes, the more you drive people to the Republican party, so please keep going.
I don’t think that anyone here has actually used ANY of the quotations you attribute to them, Jonathan. Please stop misrepresenting other contributors’/commenters’ views.
If your intent is to talk about what some OTHER people in some OTHER forum might or might not have said, I would question its relevance here.
Now matter your opinion, everyone has one! The best thing was to be able to hear each one in a different setting and more down to earth then anyother time…..do you think it helped anyone that is undeciced?
Evangelicals should not and do not run this country. I believe this Pastor Rick is a republican and showed preferential treatment to McCain(McBush). I believe John McCain was very well rehearsed, because we all know that John McCain can never answer questions that quickly. I wonder how much Pastor Rick was paid by Cindy McCain(Anhueser Bush) or the Republican party. I hope it comes out. What a dirty bunch of cheating republicans. They can’t ever be truthful. Go Obama!!!!!!
I’m going to give Rev. Warren the benefit of the doubt on supplying the questions to one or more of the candidates beforehand, or biasing the questions toward either of the candidates (I have no doubt that I’ll now be called a die-hard McCain supporter by some commenters who come here after this one.). However, like I said in my entry, I do think one or two of the questions (and definitely the "evil" question) were biased toward the current world situation. Rather, he probably should have been more general with his question, and asked more in terms of theology, or philosophical.
Danny: I think your comments toward Warren’s weight and such are uncalled for. It’s one thing to question someone’s political or theological positions. It’s quite another to personally attack them. It’s pretty clear you don’t think much of him, but any issue you have with Warren could be taken on a position basis. There’s no need to ridicule his weight, just because you can’t think up a well reasoned argument.
Sandra: Yes and no. No because a lot of people who watched it, and especially a lot of people in the audience, probably had their beliefs reaffirmed after the forum. Yet, for others, the forum probably gave them something to think about, for both candidates.
Though they’re warming up to him, McCain hasn’t been one to speak about his faith, and because he does have some moderate-to-liberal positions, a lot of people have been outright hostile toward him. He probably gained some more supporters last night.
Yet, though he didn’t get as much, Obama got applause as well. For example, like some other bloggers, I found the applause he got for naming Clarence Thomas as a justice he wouldn’t have appointed interesting. But, there were other times, too. I think Obama also got some people considering him last night as much as McCain did
Jason, I never misrepresent anyone’s quotes. These were real quotes I heard in other places, and some people on this blog, have used similar arguments and quotations.
The relevance is very obvious, and I’m surprised and shocked that someone with such good analytical skills cannot tell the relevance.
But please don’t accuse me of misrepresenting people’s views without well-thought substantiated and coherent arguments.
In case, the relevance is still not clear to you, then let me explain that some people in this article were commenting about how Barack Obama’s mistakes can be explained away. Such as RSB who tried to explain away and excuse Obama for his unclear pandering statements as "intelligent, well thought out answers" when they were clearly thought on-the-spot in order not to anger his supporters on either the left or the right (clouding his own stances).
Michael- I, too, disagree with Danny’s demeaning comments, but I would like to say that I was surprised by Mr. Warren’s size when I watched parts of the forum recently. Perhaps the cameras did add pounds, as the old saying goes, but weight is one area in which I would hold the pastor to a high standard. While I do not belong to Mr. Warren’s congregation I believe someone with as much power, influence and financial resources has a duty to set a good example for his followers and for the country at large. I salute Mr. Warren’s large donations to charity, but I am sure with his multiple sources of income he can still afford nutritious, low-fat food, not to mention a home gym and even a personal trainer and/or dietitian. I am sure the pastor would agree with me that when we take care of our bodies (gifts from God, in whose image we are made), we honor God. For those who value the pastor’s numerous good works and travels, surely losing some weight would only better allow him to continue those works at a high pace throughout a long and healthy life. Finally, any time Mr. Warren travels to areas of the world where people suffer from lack of food and malnutrition and any work he does for them is severely undercut by his own size.
Senator Obama was absolutely amazing at the Saddleback Forum — he was thoughtful, insightful, and I believed truthful — more than what I can write about Senator McCain. Senator McCain seemed scripted, unnatural and deceitful in parts. I didn’t learn anything new from McCain at all. I found that to be incredibly disappointing. The beautiful thing about this election season is that many people in the Christian faith are not allowing one political party to hijack their religious beliefs as was done in our recent past. Christians, just like their fellow Americans, are diverse in their political beliefs. I look forward to the debates.