A fantastic forum at Rick Warren’s church
Anyone catch the forum at Rick Warren’s Church last night, where the “Purpose Driven” pastor first asked questions of Barack Obama and then John McCain on hour later? It was excellent. In fact, it was better than ANY so-called debate we’ve seen in a long, long time.
Ann Althouse live-blogged it, if you’re interested. The full transcripts are probably at CNN or Fox.
Warren asked very good questions. Remember, he’s not a journalist; so, there were so set-up or “gotcha!” questions. Rather, he asked many of the types of questions that journalists should ask. Such as, “What is ‘rich’?” and “When does life begin?”
Obama displayed his strengths, and in Rich Lowery’s words, was “reflective, polished, and conversational—truer to the spirit of the event.” But his answers quite often rambled, and he often couldn’t give a straight, as in pointed, answer. I thought he fumbled some really key questions, especuially the two most important ones. When asked who the three people are he would listen to as president, Obama said his wife, his grandother (a “typical white woman”?!?) and some senator, Nunn, I think. Well, that’s all and good if you’re running for president of the PTA or for county alderman. But president of the United States? Good grief.
And second, when Warren asked when life begins, Obama flubbed really badly:
“Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.”
Oh my. If Obama loses the election, that will be the reason why. Mark Hemmingway at NRO explains,
That spectacularly inept metaphor is going to haunt Obama throughout the rest of the campaign. News flash: There’s not a job on the planet above the pay grade of the President of the United States. If you can’t solve every problem and are humble about it, that’s fine — but you can’t get away with being unsure about the most defining moral issue in politics. Of course, he didn’t put down the shovel:
But let me speak more generally about the issue of abortion. Because this is something, obviously, the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue is not paying attention.
So after completely hedging on the question and declining to give a specific answer — he wants to speak “more generally” about the issue? And, lo and behold, speak more generally he does: “I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue.” In related news, Obama is also “absolutely convinced” that the sky is blue, water is wet and puppies are adorable. None of this, however, tells me a thing about his judgment and moral worldview.
EXACTLY!!
That, boys and girls, is why, in the supposedly Democratic year, Obama cannot put on a commanding lead over McCain. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with his being black. It has everything to do with the fact that he is applying for a job well above his level of competency.
In other words, Mr “history in the making” just doesn’t cut the muster.
McCain, on the other hand, was ON FIRE. I mean, he was really, truly ON. I was impressed with him like I never have been before. Whatever’s gotten into his campaign worked. The new ads going after Obama’s real celebrity status and then last night were spectacular. This was the first time I’ve actually felt comfortable giving my vote to McCain.
I’ll put it to you this way: If Obama were the Republican candidate and McCain the Democratic, I’d go with McCain, based on last night. And before last night, I honestly wasn’t going to vote for president this year. Last night McCain earned my vote (win or lose). Obama lost it forever. And I care far too much about this country to elect some feel-good hopey-changy guy just because he’s black because it will be “history in the making.”
Wrote Lowery last night, “McCain was energetic and forceful, but relied more on his favorite lines—treating it more like one of his townhall meetings (he had the advantage of an overwhelmingly friendly crowd)…. McCain was the elder statesman telling his best stories.”
True. And he was also concise, direct, pointed, supremely confident, relaxed, comfortable and had answers — real, honest to goodness answers and plans. Not at all like Plan-Man Kerry from four years ago, and a sharp contrast from Mr. Hopey-Changey. (And a pleasent improvement from Mr. Bush, who, as much as I love and respect that man, just can’t do Q and A’s well.)
In answer to the abortion question, Mcacin answered immediately: “At the moment of conception.” Contrast that witrh Obama’s really dumb answer. (Dumb for his campaign, I mean. When you attempt to placate all sides, you end up speaking in jumbled and convoluted riddles. Make fun of Bush all you want, but no one really hates him because they don’t understand what he means.)
In response to the question on which three people he will listen to as president, McCain first said General Petraeus, whom he described as one of America’s greatest militarty commanders ever. (Yes, he is!) The other two were Ebay founder Meg Whitman, one of America’s greatest entreprenuers, and a soldier wounded in Iraq.
That, my friends, quietly screams “leader.”
One final word: Obama attacked Clarence Thomas last night, in typical unthinking liberal fashion. Thomas is HATED because he’s a black man who bucks the “accepted” way blacks are supposed to be: liberal. Thomas is conservative through and through, and he is one of the most brilliant minds to ever sit on the high court. (See my review on Thomas’ autobiography for the full story.) Yet Obama, whose only “experience” for president is promoting himself and beating hapless opponents for office, dares to insinuate Thomas is unqualified” Just like Harry Reid does.
Mark Levine at NRO worte,
“Without a doubt, the lowest moment of the night was Obama’s smear of Clarence Thomas. He, like Harry Reid, can’t simply disagree with Thomas, he has to try to degrade him. On Obama’s best day he can’t hold a candle to Thomas’s intelligence. Obama can barely make it through a press conference and ducks town hall debates with McCain because of his inability to speak in complete sentences when pressed to show his much noted but usually absent brilliance.”
Indeed.
So, what did Obama say that’s bad?
“(I wouldn’t have nominated) Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.
That second part is devastatingly LOL-funny, but only for someone who sees just “hope and change” and doesn’t know what Obama has actually said and done. Again from NRO (via Instapundit):
Was it that Barack Obama didn’t like Justice Thomas’s vote on the recent child-rapist case, Kennedy v. Louisiana? No, that couldn’t be it. Barack Obama agreed with Thomas on that decision. Justice Ginsburg, meanwhile — a liberal favorite on the Court, whom John McCain listed as one of his least favorite justices during the same forum — opposed giving child rapists the death penalty. So what’s so wrong about Thomas and so right about, say, Ginsburg, Senator Obama? . . .
Did Obama disagree with Justice Thomas on the recent cross-burning case, Virginia v. Black? Obama’s favorite justice, Justice Ginsburg, wrote that cross-burning bans are constitutionally suspect. Justice Thomas disagreed and wrote a passionate dissent.
YEP. So, Obama would appoint the far-left Ginsberg whose rulings he disagrees with, but wouldn’t appoint Thomas, despite the fact that he agrees with him!
When you dig beneath the shallow celebrity status, his black skin and “hope and change,” you find a rank amatuer.
Bottom line was this: Last night’s excellent format starkly demonstrated that Obama is ready to be your friend and that McCain is ready to lead the greatest nation on earth.
UPDATE: The indispensible (and fellow St. Louisan) Gateway Pundit caught this very telling exchange:
Warren to Obama- Does evil exist, and if so, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?
Obama: “… Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil. You know a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil… In the name of good and I think one thing that’s very important is having some humility in recognizing that. You know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn’t mean that we’re going to be doing good.”
(Gateway Pundit: He’s not talking about another country there– He’s talking about the US perpetrating evil. Is anyone else outraged with that statement?)
Warren to McCain - Does evil exist, and if so, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?
McCain: Defeat it.
To sum (again): Obama cannot give a straight answer about ANYTHING. If you look at this objectively and honestly, you know I’m right.
Posted by Big Mo
August 17th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Too funny, Mo! While you were writing this I was doing an addendum to your comments on Obama’s abortion stance. Great minds, and then there is mine…
August 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Excellent post, BTW, and thanks for the links. I hoped you’d seen it and would post on it. Great work.
/
August 17th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
One quibble with you about the three wisest people McCain would go to for advice: He named General Petraeus, John Lewis (a democrat who fought the civil rights battle), Meg Whitman and talked about the soldiers.
The question was who are the three wisest people you would go to for advice or something like that but it was the wisest people and not just people.
Obama said his grandmother, wife and Sam Nunn. Speaks volumes.
He quibbled and said nothing of substance throughout his entire interview and the fact they were both asked the very same questions by the very same person made this a delightful event because we were able to compare apples to apples for a change.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
One more thing. Obama did himself no favors and may have shot himself in the foot by saying Thomas wasn’t experienced enough to be a SCOTUS justice. When you point a finger three more are pointing back at you and Obama had three more point directly at him with that observation. He also has no qualifications and by his own definition is not ready for the big seat.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Considering the type of forum it was, I believe both candidates missed that question on who would they ask for advice. Think about it.
Who does anyone who professes faith turn to in times of trouble and need?
August 18th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Jeanette - thanks for the catch!
Stephanie - my wife got it right away. Before I could give their answers, she said, “God?”
August 18th, 2008 at 9:52 am
To be fair, the question was phrased “wisest person”, and that would imply to me a living human person - perhaps an indication of the company one keeps.
What could Obama say? He couldn’t tell the truth - Wright, Ayers, and all his terrorist/commie/black liberation/muslim buddies. Michelle is bad enough, and probably his white grandmother is the only white person he could think of that wasn’t a communist. But she may be, there just is no public evidence of it.
In that case I wouldn’t have said “God” eventhough that’s who I would ask for guidance, and whose direction I’d most like to follow, but I believe He speaks to us through our counselors, and thus the necessity for surrounding ourselves with wise people.
When I had my first job as a supervisor I was only 23 years old and terrified because some of the analysts I was responsible for had many many years of experience in the laboratory. It seemed to me that they all were smarter than I was. I called my father and confessed my fears and he explained that good managers knew how to surround themselves with experts. “You don’t have to BE the expert” he said “You just have to be able to recognize the expert.”
So how good is Obama at recognizing the expert? He accused Patraeus of painting a rosy picture, etc… He attended the TUCC for 20 years….
And is there anyone else on the planet who would go to Sen. Sam Nunn for advice? I’ll bet his wife doesn’t even do it.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:08 am
McCain peed all over Obama!!!!
August 18th, 2008 at 11:06 am
1 Timothy 4:10 - For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Did you think I killed Him, Steph?
August 18th, 2008 at 11:35 am
No,
I just wanted to remind you. I know a lot of people do want to kill him, but I’m quite sure you’re not one of them.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:40 am
BigMo,
You know I really have to agree with you. McCain sounded more presidential He was very crisp in his answers……..This was definitely a one up for McCain…….Where Obama went wrong is I believe he felt that he had to explain too much to an audience that wasn’t necessarily going to vote for him anyway………Even if they disagreed with his The other thing that really bothered me was his handling of the abortion question…he seemed that he was unprepared for the question…now I know that the candidates had no access to the questions but Obama should have known considering the forum that he was going to that if there was one question that was going to be asked it was going to be one on abortion…….I don’t get where you were going with the Clarence Thomas thing……..Obama just does not agree with Mr Thomas…..In fact that was one of the answers that he got a pretty good round of applause from the audience on….It didn’t have anything to do with Clarence’s skin color…(doesn’ t that sound familiar) …….XDX4K or what ever his name is said McCain has momentum and I have to admit right now he does…but as in any good basketball game or presidential election the momentum shifts and it will shift both ways until the final decision in November…..I believe that Obama will have to take his lumps on this one and will learn from…..because if he doesn’t he won’t gain that momentum back……
Obama in ‘08…….History in the making……..
PS
the media seems to think that McCain may have heard some of the questions because he was not in a “cone of silence” but on his way to the venue….but that is probably just rumor by the MSM……..
August 18th, 2008 at 11:44 am
No reminding necessary, I just think of God with reverence and as holy, not as human. While Jesus is fully man and fully God, He remains in my mind Fully God for the purpose of respect and guidance, and fully Man for the purpose of understanding my perspective as a human, having had no sin but having suffered and died for mine. Jesus’s resurrection and life, my source of salvation is through His deity.
If asked who were the ‘wisest persons’ I would seek as advisors, I would assume that God would not fall into that category, since He is God the Creator, the Great I Am. I would leave it out because as a religious person, if it wasn’t obvious that I took guidance from God, then there is no sense in giving God a bad name by saying I did out loud.
Which people I would trust would be a good indicator of my character, don’t you think? In that regard BHussein’s answers were disingenuous.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Bruce,
Yes, Andrea Mitchell is in some hot water for making the statement on NBC, and giving credibility to that scurrulous accusation. The media sits on evidence and knowingly colludes the Edward’s scandal, but accuses McCain (in the defense of their candidate) without a shred of evidence. But that 55% of Americans who believe that media bias is more harmful to our elections than campaign finance corruption get no respect…
I can understand why the media wants to mitigate Obama’s disaster, however, by implying an uneven playing field. They must be going after the Pulitzer of Irony on that one.
I give your guy kudos on showing up at this forum. He’s taking a page from the Clinton/Carter playbook by not insulting the religous folk. Good decision for him in that regard. Too bad he wasn’t more honest with his answers. His abortion stance was pretty clear on Mar 30, 2001, when he voted against protecting live born children of botched abortions. But he couldn’t tell a room of people who value life that… could he?
August 18th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I stand corrected, ma’am.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Bruce - it’s really simple re: Clarence Thomas. Obama claimed he wouldn’t have named Thomas to the courts because, words to the effect, he’s not smart enough and disagrees with his interpretation of the constitution. YET, Obama agreed with Thomas ***numerous times*** but NOT the jurists he supposedly loves — Gisnberg, Stevens, etc. (See Obama’s convoluted statements on the DC handgun ban for example, back when that decision came out.)
So, what is his problem with Thomas or Thomas interpretation of the Constitution, which is nearly idebntical to Scalia’s and Roberts, whom Obama praised?
The only possible answer is that he disses Thomas because as a good liberal and good black liberal, that’s what you’re supposed to do. His answer was no more intelligent than Harry Reid’s slam of Thomas some months ago.
And just what is so bad about Thomas? He wants minorities respected and treated like everyone else, instead of continually pandered to. And that makes Clarence Thomas very, very dangerous to the left.
In a real debate on constitutional matters, Thomas would run rings around Obama and Reid, leave them dizzy and wimpering for mama.
Read this link, a little bit of which I excerpted in the article, for the full deal on how much Obama actually agrees with Thomas.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDFhMmVlZWU1ZjBjMGVhNGU2YWUzN2RhMGUzYTkzMGQ=
August 18th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
No correction intended, Steph, just clarifying my POV. It’s perfectly reasonable for a person to say God is the person who gives him guidance, too. But I can understand if someone didn’t as I wouldn’t do it either.
I thought the Thomas gaffe to be freudian. (Now I’m too far into Steph’s arena to be taken seriously) But could Obama be worried about his own inexperience and that’s why he blurted that out? It was by all measures a rookie misstep.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I just finished watching the forum on YouTube. It was interesting to say the least. Obama tried to play both sides against the middle with many of his answers (nonanswers) so I’m not sure if I’d classify his remarks about Thomas as freudian. Obama thinks he is experienced enough and he believes the facade that has been created for him. You get a sense of that with his other “answers” because he sidesteps into rambling discourse instead of direct answers to direct questions. I believe Mo has the right of it, or should I say the right has the right of it? It’s because Thomas is a black conservative. I believe he just adlibbed his way through that as a “case” against Thomas… not a very good one, but, still…
August 18th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I’ll tell you what: if you want a serious contrast between two highly prominent black men, then first read Obama’s two largely self-serving autobiographies and then read Thomas’ “My Grandfather’s Son.”
(If you havn’t read Audacity of Hope and the other one, never fear: Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot at National Review did so and has chapter-by-chapter excerpts in his blog.)
There is gaping canyon of difference between those two men. One is humble and fully cognizant of his painful failures. The other is full of barely concealed bitter anger or contempt towards whites and many others.
One learned painful lessons, many from self-inflicted wounds, long before the press and “his own kind” savaged him — painful lessons that made him the strong man that he is today. And he wrote about those failings with remorse and wisdom. The other wrote of his adventures through life in his books — which often contradict in small yet pointed ways what he says on the campaign trail.
One is purely humble and avoids the spotlight. The other seems to crave adulation so much that he believes his own press.
One is savaged as an “oreo” and “race traitor” because of his strong convictions rooted in lessons from his grandfather and his beliefs. The other is hailed as the savior of the nation because he makes stirring scripted speeches and tries to pass himself off as “post-racial.”
One wrote his memoirs to set the record straight and honor his “Daddy”’s memory. The other wrote his books, at least the second one, to promote himself.
One disrespected the grandfather who raised him when he was a punk college kid, and regretted it ever since. The other disrespected his grandmother as a “typical white person” while an adult running for president.
One’s convictions and statements are rooted in the Constitution and his upbringing. The other’s convictons often seem elusive because he hides his true feelings with flowery phrases, evasions and obfuscations, or tries too hard to please most parties, or changes his story following each major gaffe, rendering many of his stated convictions a jumbled mess.
One lost his Catholic faith then regained it, a faith that quietly guides his life. The other attended a black nationalist church for 23 years and disrespected the entire country by first pretending to not hear what was said from the pulpit, and then later said that he did, then still later cast aside that church when it became too politically inconvenient, making many unsure whether he attended the church for purely political reasons or he actually believed what was said.
The contrasts go on and on and on…
But on the flip side, one made an absolute mess of his first marriage and ended up leaving his wife, and is now happily remarried and remains devoted to his children. The other has had a strong marriage and is devoted to his wife and children.