wonder (0.00 / 0)

how many people there felt a little uncomfortable when Obama brought up that inconvenient passage from Christ himself.

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 18:57:48 PM UTC

Thoughtful and Nuanced = Loser (0.00 / 0)

While Obama didn't embarrass himself, if this is the style he brings to the debates, McCain will mop the floor with him.

Obama was at his worst during the debates, and his town hall style isn't much better.

If he doesn't get tough, and get tough fast (as opposed to telling us he's tough) he will be spending the rest of his life explaining why he couldn't beat these stiffs in 2008.

---

by: -ck- @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 19:07:03 PM UTC

While I don't think Saddleback was a bad thing .. (4.00 / 2)

it's not like McCain appearing before the NAACP .. does McCain get grilled for an hour in front of the audience by the head of the NAACP?  I thought he just goes and gives his standard stump speech .. Daniel over to the right on Quick Hits highlights a great quote from Perlstein ... Lets see McCain come to a forum open only to MoveOn.org members .. I bet McCain doesn't have the brass ones for that

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 19:26:17 PM UTC

Agreed (4.00 / 1)

The NAACP is a stupid comparison. That organization is based on race/color, not ideology, even though it happens to reflect its constituency's lopsided political preferences. Rick Warren and the rest of the "religious" wingnut establishment is based entirely on political/social stances. Inviting McCain to get grilled by MoveOn, as you say, or Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore would be a much more reasonable comparison.

Obama's inability or unwillingness to accept that the political/culture conflict is a battle, not a hallmark card moment, has become increasingly worrying. I think he made a big mistake lending his prestige to the likes of Warren.

---

by: DaveW @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 21:01:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama "won." (0.00 / 0)

Obama's task was to try and pick off part of a reliable Republican constituency without alienating his own base, McCain is still having to shore up his base.

I think Obama did well given the task at hand. McCain, on the other hand, announced to the substantial pro-choice majority of the country on national TV how badly he wants to limit women's reproductive choice and what he will do toward that end. And this was on TV because both candidates were there. Huge win for Obama in my view.

Obama came across as a committed, thoughtful and honest Christian and probably picked off some moderate evangelicals. I think McCain's pandering to his base probably came off as pretty transparent, while he just corrected the misperception of millions of pro-choice Republicans and independents who had thought he was pro-choice.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 19:29:07 PM UTC

He didn't lose, which I suppose is good (4.00 / 1)

But he can turn it into an outright victory if he and his campaign surrogates spend the week hitting on two themes:

1) McCain is an out-of-touch elitist who thinks $5 million is a middle-class income

2) McCain is a dangerous wingnut who shares his values with the religious zealots.

Did McCain cast a vote on Terry Schiavo? Something to highlight...

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 19:40:26 PM UTC

Personal Moral Failure (4.00 / 1)

Mr. McCain said that it was the end of his first marriage.

I'd like to hear some follow-up questions on that topic.  Where was his "moral failure"?  Dropping his first wife because she had become disfigured?  If the end of that marriage was a "moral failure", what does that say about his current marriage?  Is it a "moral victory", or just a political/financial gambit?

I think McCain opened a door on these issues - which pundit has the gits to go through it and follow up?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 21:18:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He impressed the Pat Robertson crowd (0.00 / 0)

ref http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429...

Obama's main focus is not to win over the die hard conservative Evangelicals. He's trying to appeal to the broader faith community and the latest polling shows he's doing a pretty god job of it.

In other words, while he's not going to win the votes of the Pat Robertson crowd, he has their respect - and can continue going after the votes of younger "swing" evangelicals with more success than recent past Democratic candidates.

---

by: tietack @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 21:10:57 PM UTC

It wasn't a home run, but put a man on base... (0.00 / 0)

I don't think anyone though that one conversation from Obama was going to suddenly sway hundreds of thousands of voters to his side. What he did was make evangelicals see that a Democrat could be honest, wise, thoughtful, and theologically knowledgeable when all they're even told is that the lefties are godless heathens.

This is a big step in a long-term process started by people like Jim Wallis and Ron Sider to get Christians to see that poverty is the biggest moral failure of the church and that our top priority should be serving people and healing a broken system -- alongside whatever party is most willing to assist in that. The point isn't to make all Christians Democrats but to see Democrats as the better option in assisting the mission and purpose of the church, to love one's neighbor.

In that respect, I think Obama gave the audience something they weren't expecting, and set the groundwork for future inquiry and interest in the articulation of Democratic values.

---

by: indythink @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:05:10 AM UTC

the religious ignorance of the secular left (4.00 / 1)

Posts like this one drive me crazy.  I'm a socially conservative Evangelical, but one who is willing to listen to other points of view and open to changing his mind on substantive policy issues.  This sort of nonsense, however, is not helpful.  If I may be so bold, these comments simply buy wholesale into the popular assumptions about conservative Christianity without showing any effort to really understand that worldview.

Do you really believe that those of us who are opposed to gay marriage "spend [our] time" focusing on three verses about homosexuality and simply ignore the rest of the book?  Do you really think that those of us who are serious about following Jesus are unaware of Matthew 25, or that we do not "quote it and love it"?  How insulting-- and naive.

Many conservative Christians, no doubt, are unreflective about their political leanings.  They just go with the tide.  But so do many liberals (religious and otherwise).  It's the American way, I guess.

Many many conservative Christians, however, give serious thought to questions about the nature and purpose of the state, and many of us come to the conclusion--based on Scripture and reason--that the function of the state is primarily to protect the natural institutions that make flourishing human life possible.  For some of us, that means that forced redistribution of income is necessary because it respects the positive claim rights of human persons and is in line with Matthew 25.  For others among us (myself included), such redistribution is an overstepping of its bounds by the federal government.  We believe--passionately!--in obeying Jesus' command in Matthew 25.  We work to feed the hungry and serve the oppressed.  But we believe that such work is the work of private citizens and charitable organizations, not the federal government.

Readers of this blog who would like to believe things that are true (rather than false but convenient stereotypes) about conservative Christians and charitable work may benefit from reading Arthur Brooks's Who Really Cares?.

Those who would like to wrestle with the sort of ideas that motivate some of us to adopt these views about the nature of the state might find if profitable to read Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum (which can be accessed in its entirety online).  Or you might make a habit of reading First Things (www.firstthings.com).

And those who would like to pretend that we conservative Christians are merely hypocritical, unreflective, callous, bigoted sheep should avoid reality at all costs and read Mr. Lux's post over and over and over again.  Also be sure to check out the Huffington Post.  That's pretty good too.

---

by: emjay42 @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 13:07:55 PM UTC

Appreciate your input (0.00 / 0)

Just wanted to say that I appreciate your input here. It takes courage to speak up in a place where your views are in the minority.

If I'm reading right, your quibble is with the last paragraph of the diary.

There are many of us who understand that there is a broad spectrum of views among Christians, just as broad as there is among the general population. And some of us also read the Huffington Post.

And there is sometimes productive interaction between liberals and conservative Christians - such as the discussions between Barney Frank and Henry Hyde, especially w/r/t programs such as AFDC.

---

by: tietack @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 14:18:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks, I guess (4.00 / 1)

I appreciate the kind words, but I don't know how much courage I display in posting anonymously!

---

by: emjay42 @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 14:43:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]