Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
SADDLEBACK FALLOUT FOR DEMOCRATS.
That John McCain was not, in fact, locked within a "cone of silence" during Rick Warren's questioning of Barack Obama on Saturday points to the whole problem of anointing a pastor the arbiter of a presidential forum -- or the arbiter of elections in general. A lot of the people pushing for the event in the first place were Democrats and Obama supporters -- and I don't think their cause was helped in the end.
Making Warren the arbiter let him ask questions like the one he posed about a recent poll that showed that 70% of Americans believe that faith-based organizations can solve social problems better than the government can. Who conducted that poll? How was the question phrased? Who were the respondents? No one asks, no one requires Warren to substantiate it. Warren is a pastor, so he's implicitly trusted to be fair and forthright.
While Obama was thought to have had the most to gain from the forum, he performed terribly -- mushy was the adjective that leapt to mind. Even his posture was hunched, like he didn't really believe some of the things he was saying. It's a hazard in part created by the campaign's overly enthusiastic effort to reach out to evangelicals. Because Obama wants so badly to reach those coveted evangelical voters, he was willing to submit himself to an environment in which he couldn't be unabashedly pro-choice, where he felt like he had to elevate the work of unaccountable faith-based organizations above government and secular NGOs, and where he had to pontificate on the nature of evil. It might have been billed as brave for a Democrat to step into a potentially hostile environment like that but Obama didn't rise to the occasion by coming across as tough, firm, and passionate in his beliefs. Showing your Christian values doesn't mean you have to be so genial and accommodating that you fail to come across as a leader.
McCain did two things: He satisfied the Christian right, especially with his answers on abortion, and simultaneously came across as a tough guy, which comforts other GOP base voters who might have had doubts. He was deft in that he realized he could capture the Christian right with the abortion answers without alienating less bible-thumping voters with too much God talk.
Warren tried to push aside church-state separation issues by claiming he believes in the separation of church and state, but not the separation of faith and politics. But the injection of faith so much in the campaign is not good for Democrats. What happens if Obama wins, and exit polling can be interpreted to show that religious voters put him over the top? He's setting a bar for future candidates -- that they prove their faith in Jesus -- that I don't particularly want to see be a requirement for running for office. And if he loses -- and if exit polls show what polls are showing now, that he's doing no better than Kerry with religious voters -- then he would have gained nothing and possibly have even lost an opportunity to speak a common language on progressive values to all Americans, religious and not.
--Sarah Posner
COMMENTS (11)
That John McCain was not, in fact, locked within a "cone of silence" during Rick Warren's questioning of Barack Obama on Saturday...
Simply not true and there is no evidence that happened. This is a lame attempt to try to cover up Obama's inability. McCain is simply better equipped to lead....period.
Posted by: El Viajero | August 18, 2008 11:30 AM
McCain's being in a motorcade and then in a green room hardly precludes him from having access to the questions, whether it be via cellphone, radio, close captioned TV feed, etc.
McCain might have learned the content of the questions; the event was being broadcast live, and presumably his aides have Blackberries. Coaching could have taken place without McCain hearing anything directly from the broadcast at all.
Posted by: tx | August 18, 2008 11:31 AM
With all due respect, Sarah, you have conflated "religious" with "Evangelical." According to a recent Barna poll, Obama is outperforming McCain among religious voters of all faiths and denominations . . . EXCEPT Evangelicals. That is better than where Kerry was, seeing as Kerry could not resonate with any group, religious or not. All of us who voted for Kerry were really just voting against Bush. But I digress; my point is, if Obama loses the Evangelical vote, it does NOT mean that he loses the election . . . nor does it mean that he has lost the religious vote. Since when is Evangelical Christianity the only religion in America?
Posted by: The Caped Composer | August 18, 2008 11:34 AM
The traveler is not a member of the reality based community -- there is not merely "evidence" that it happened -- it did happen. McCain was in the car on the way to the church while Obama was being interviewed. Fact.
Now, as for the post, I dunno. Obama had nothing to lose, basically. At least he demonstrated that he is not the anti-Christ, and he is not a Muslim. Although Warren, to his credit, is trying to broaden the evangelical agenda beyond the sacrality of the blastocyst and the depravity of the sodomite, we all know that's all they really care about, and there's nothing Obama can do about it. But declaring himself resolutely opposed to abortion hurts McCain with the electorate.
Posted by: cervantes | August 18, 2008 11:34 AM
its interesting, these dems. there was cheating in OH in 2004! proven totally false. gore was robbed, recounted dozens of times, proven false. a guy who has lived his mwhole life with a code of conduct which being accused of lying is like the lowest accusation. ok, well, it COULD have happned. yeah!! thats it. that explains it all. ok, guys, when it is proven that he didnt hear any of the obama parts, and knew as much as obama did about the questions; they were both briefed in general terms beforehand. what will you say? would you apologize to mccain for accusing him of lying? doubtful. have you all ever heard of projection? thats where a thief will be the first to accuse someone of stealing. its their worldview. they think everyone else acts as they do. thye have no other example to use. you put an honest man in charge of a pile of unattended money, he doesnt consider taking any. the thief cant even compute that. he accuses the honest man of stealing; he would so, he would act in that way. he projects his own experience of himself to the hnest man. he sees the world thru his own lense.
and the dems always see lying and cheating, where none exists. hmmmmmmmm
peace guys. theres a lot for you all to find, deep down inside. pls look. for your own kharma's sake.
Posted by: fred | August 18, 2008 1:08 PM
where is the apology from rick warren, a self-proclaimed man of god, for having lied to the viewers of this event? mccain gave his red-meat stump speech, and it took him all of 30 seconds to tell his first lie about the number of people who make a living off e-bay. is that winning? i guess it is in the land of the simple electorate.
Posted by: norm | August 18, 2008 1:09 PM
Still waiting for one good reason to vote for McCain.
The Obama haters don't convince me with their hypocritical and outright unprovable accusations.
He is certainly not the most FIT to lead. So the first comment is just puzzling to me.
The first poster claims McCain is better equipped because he could answer questions before they were asked. Oh, and it goes both ways. You cannot prove he didn't hear the questions.
Honor system? Please, in 2008 GOP politics you expect ANYONE to believe they followed the honor system. Naivete, look it up.
Yeah, cheating will do that...make you better equipped
Posted by: Jason | August 18, 2008 2:30 PM
Still waiting for one good reason to vote for McCain.
How about "He's not a Marxist"?
Posted by: El Viajero | August 18, 2008 2:47 PM
"He's not a Marxist"
An answer that applies equally to both candidates is not a GOOD reason to vote for a particular one. So try again.
If you think Obama IS a Marxist, then you are delusional!
Posted by: Independent | August 18, 2008 4:33 PM
The concealment of the questions was not germane to the relevance of the Forum and was established merely as a construct for adding interest, sizzle and freshness. You would be hard pressed to name a single question that either of the candidates should not have already possessed in a ready and coherent reply. And the questions you might cite as taxing are the ones where Warren prepped the candidates beforehand. That is, expect McCain, who was not present to be prepared beforehand. If anything, Obama had the edge.
Regardless, none of the questions were rigorous or required deep reflection. It's not like Warren asked them to name the five most exigent strategies implied in 'dispassionate disengagement' reflected in Kierkegaard's neo-orthodoxist work, Fear and Trembling. Come on folks - get a life.
What is also disturbing about the left's nasally complaint (READ: sour grapes) is that their discontent was not addressed beforehand when the details of McCain's arrival was noted amply. If there was a time to express concern, it was then - not after their candidate failed to perform as expected.
Personally, I called Saddleback and expressed my concern that if Obama were to show poorly, they should expect the left to cry foul!
Sadly, they are behaving as predicted.
Posted by: wordleman | August 20, 2008 4:09 AM
Her parents asked the same question.
Good luck to you too.
Posted by: bilginin adresi bilginin tek kaynağı | August 20, 2008 5:11 PM