Rick Warren isn’t my brand of Protestant, but I would gladly take HIM as a debate moderator over any of the news media personalities.  After watching the Saddleback Church sessions with the candidates, and comparing it to the way the media fail to get candidates to talk about issues of substance, I was pleasantly surprised.  I had not expected any substance from this event.  The fact that both candidates were asked the same questions made it possible for the viewer to compare and reach his won conclusions about which one he thinks will be the better president. 

I agree, Saddleback isn’t Obama’s congregation for comfort.  But it really isn’t McCain’s either.  I think both men are sincere in their Christian faith, but each subscribes to a very different denomination of it than the other, or Pastor Warren’s.  It was evident that many in the audience are more sympathetic to McCain’s views on the issues than Obama’s, but that does not invalidate the method used.  I suspect that had this event been conducted exactly the same way, but by the National Urban League or the NAACP, Obama would have had the more sympathetic audience. 

I would say McCain’s suggestion for town hall meetings would be good – especially if the moderators would use the technique used by Warren of asking the same questions to each candidate.  The positives would include the ability to hear both candidates speak to the issue,and see how each reacts to the comments of his rival; the down side is that the candidates might not respond as fully to the questions.  That’s where the skilled moderator comes in – prompting the candidate to give a more complete answer.  Either way, it would be better than the sound bites and constant spin we get from the mainstream media.  A half century ago, candidates had their speeches printed in the newspapers.  If you didn’t get to actually see Dewy or Truman in your town, you could read the full text of the speech, and see for yourself what the candidate’s campaign was all about.  In the haste to sell advertising, perhaps the media has relinquished some of its civic duty,and should resume the practice of printing transcripts of speeches by the candidates.  I don’t expect to see it happen.  Meanwhile, Well done, Pastor Warren.  And well done Senator McCain – it was clearly his night. 

I think Michael’s observation is spot on, and I think it’s actually the reason that Obama’s supporters are so nervously trying to spin this event. The comparison of youth vs. experience with experience coming out on top hasn’t been more obvious since Reagan’s famous quip in the debate with Mondale. This wasn’t as direct, but the subliminal message was still there- that the old guy isn’t going to let his age be a negative factor, quite the contrary in fact.

As for Warren, the format, etc- if the candidates are going to talk about issues of faith and morality, then this was definitely a good way to do it. One of the most unfortunate things about religion in politics in recent years is that the secular media obsesses on the ‘gotcha’ aspect, which only makes the problem of kneejerk ‘values voters’ worse (they only get to hear these soundbites which tell them which candidate is ‘their guy’.) At least by having a more thoughtful religous leader lead this discussion, you got a better sense of how each candidate really thinks about these things instead of the ‘raise your hand if you don’t believe in evolution’ kind of crap.

Obama’s job here was to show whether he could bridge the gap with conservative Christians; overall in that sense he didn’t do too badly, but there were a couple of questions where he stumbled pretty badly (the abortion question and the SCOTUS one) so he definitely didn’t close the deal IMO. Add that to the fact that McCain did have the natural advantage of holding positions that were in agreement with most of the audience, and the stylistic differences that related to personality and age, and there’s no doubt it was McCain’s night.

It’s certainly your right to believe that Obama is a terrible candidate and McCain a fine one, that the subjects were neutral and McCain didn’t use a stump speech line Jonathan. It’s also my right to utterly disagree on every single one of those points

The line of questioning was, logically enough for the setting, heavy on social issues and the audience was, also logically, socially conservative. You yourself said in another thread that the event favored McCain, more socially conservative than Obama.

As for McCain being on a stump speech, it was my impression as I watched the thing. Afterwards I read several reviews that, to a greater or lesser degree, said the same thing, that McCain was more about stumping, about talking points, directing himself to the audience rather than Warren himself. If you feel it utterly necessary I can dig and find these references.

As for respecting McCain, that’s very similar to the McCain campaign strategy of making every SINGLE criticism of the candidate an attack on his character, never forgetting to throw in the shield-against-all (unless you are Kerry) veteran status into the mix. If saying that McCain was using stump speech talking points in that forum is disrespecting him, I’ll tell you what; I won’t do that if you stop questioning Obama’s character, intentions, education and intelligence at every turn. Deal?