I didn't catch all of McCain. After his two POW stories -- this from a guy who says he doesn't want to talk about his POW experiences -- I kept telling my kids: "McCain is having a panderfest!"

Finally, they said: "Mom, please, let's go to dinner." I finally decided that was a good idea. So I missed the rest of McCain.

Nuanced analysis, Kevin, but tomorrow's headlines will be "McCain, Man of Action, Humiliates Obama".

Insults sell more ads.

It was a look at how Obama idea's of "hope" and "change" are nothing more than rhetoric.

Obama is all talk, and no substance.

Local ABC news showed a poll on the 11 p.m. news, and it said McCain won the debate 3/1 (70 something per cent to 20 something percent)

More fretting in the blogosphere about Obama's "poor" performance. From what I gathered,
McCain won this "debate." Fortunately for Obama, this occurred on a summer Saturday night, so this won't be a needle mover, though I could be worng on this.

Didn't see any of it, but if Kevin's take is correct, sounds like the right move on Obama's part. McCain's been on the national stage for several years now; the electorate is comfortable with him. By Obama being more laid back, more collegial, it allows us to get comfortable with him as well. There is plenty of time for a knock down, drag out campaign after the conventions.

Well, sure McCain came out and treated it as a straight campaign event. Every question was loaded and ready to be answered with standard right wing talking points. And the audience was primed to eat the answers up. Warren wouldn't even finish questions at times before McCain was answering them. There was absolutely no thought put into them.

Obama and the left has got to quit agreeing to this crap; if McCain wants to do a similar bit with Stephen Colbert moderating then Obama can do one with this guy. Otherwise, quit letting the right define the debate.

Anon:
Probably about 50 people outside of bloggers saw the Saddleback thing on TV. It is a Saturday night. People were either out for the evening or watching the Olympics.

I think the question of how Obama did depends on what he was trying to do. I think that Obama--and Warren--were trying to end the alignment of evangelicals with the Reoublican party. With that in mind then Obama's decsion to speak to the people present at the church rather than a national audiance and to be personal. personable, and sincere, was the wise choice. Everybody knew what McCain was going to say and he said it. So what? Obama was the unknown or the incorrectly known and he came acros as a good guy. It will be easier now for people who once thought that they were going to vote Republican to consider voting Deomcratic instaed.

My friends, I'm going to be your next president because you're too stupid and too lazy to know or care that I'm going to fuck you. And I'm going to bring all my corporate buddies to the White House, and they're going to fuck you too. God bless America!

All I heard from Obama was a bunch of stuttering and hesitation, which suggested he was trying to think of the most favorable answer. McCain actually shared very personal experiences and expressed intimately his concerns and views on the issues we are currently facing. McCain is also obviously much more educated on foreign issues which should be on everyone's priority list. How about the fact that Obama was only in the Senate one year before Oprah decided he was going to be our president compared to McCains 26 year experience in the Senate. Do your research people!!!

Hmm...I am looking at this completely differently. There's 80 days left in the general election and McCain needs to spend an hours answering personal questions in order to shore up his base?

Shoring up your base is something you do in the primaries. McCain should never have had to do this forum in the first place, and the fact that he did, is an incredible sign of weakness.

Obama, OTOH, had nothing whatsoever to lose. Nothing. This is a group that was going to be hostile toward his views, but polite to the man. All he had here was the opportunity to gain, gain, gain, which I think he did.

Look at it this way: Suppose Obama had to go do this type of event at the First AME Baptist Church in LA, in order to make sure that 80 days from an election, his base feels like they know who he really is? Versus McCain strolling into the event with nothing to lose, only votes to gain.

Let's try to look at this through the prism of political reality.

Tonight, just by showing up, Obama is stepping right over the 30 yard line and into McCain's home territory.

@Candice

You've summed it up to a T. Obama is terrible at extemporaneous speaking, and comes of as Mr Wonk whenever he goes into policy.
McCain has lived, and goes rambling through his story - but it connects on another level.

My guess is the 70 - 20 McCain won the "debate" thing is selection bias -- the biggest chunk of people who tuned in to this Warren Court would be the kind of people who vote for the Republicans anyway. Obama is fishing in sterile water here, although, as with everything he does, he's probably trying to convince the media he's going to be obedient to the rules they have laid out for Democrats ("Thou shalt pander, and then pray we don't attack you for being a panderer, because if thou dost not pander, we will attack you for being too stupid to pander"), as he is trying to convince Republicans he isn't a muslim.

Can someone tell me, again, why the Democrats nominated this guy? He's spent his entire post-primary campaign thus far demeaning his own base, while walking on eggshells trying to please center-right voters. What's the point?

So... Did the McCain camp increase the payout for favorable blog comments?

This was Kabuki theater. McCain supplied the questions to Saddlebags Church. When have you ever heard a question in a political debate about orphans of the world or the existence of 'evil'. They were designed to compare McCain's perceived strengths against Obama. McCain rolled with loaded dice. They call it shooting fish in a barrel. Obama was nuanced and sincere, but he did not realize he had showed up at a gunfight.

Saddleback? Did you mean the Equestrian competition in Olympics?

How religious do you have to be to care for this Saddleback event? And if you are a religious nut, aren't you already likely in McCain's column?

You absolutely nailed it, Kevin. Exactly what I was thinking. Once the venue moves away from Christian freaks, Obama will be much more forceful.

This was a sucker bet for Obama. "Pastor" Warren kept advising Barack to not give a "stump speech" and then continued to let McCain do just that.

The anti-intellectualism strain in this country never ceases to amaze me. "Give it to me straight, just don't require me to think" simply plays into the hands of dickwads like Warren and McCain.

If this is any indication of where this election is going, God (or whatever deity you do or do not believe in) help us!

If anybody out there thinks that "Pastor" Warren wants anything other than a right-wing Republican president, I've got some great real estate deals for them. Particularly in Irvine (I live in Fountain Valley in the "OC").

This was not "civil." It was not a "discussion."

It was a setup.

An interesting idea for a commercial:

"On Evil"

Rick Warren: Does evil exist and what do we do about it?

Obama: Yes, evil exists in terrorist attacks and child abuse. As a soldier for God, we confront it as it's God's role to end it.

McCain: Yes, evil exists. We destroy it.

Video: Fighter strike on a suburban home outside Columbus, OH.

McCain, by contrast, treated it as a straight campaign event: he had his stump speech talking points ready, and he was eager to cram as many of them into his 50 minutes as possible.

Well, I'm sure that made a difference to the 50 million Americans who chose to watch it instead of the Olympics.

Obama had a gameplan: speak to the audience of Rick Warren e-fan-gelicals in a way that challenges the Muslim Mandingo shit that lands in their email inbox.

Otherwise, it's the doldrums before the conventions, and it's going to be as relevant as last week's TV Guide by the end of the month.

The McCain trolls, like anon and Candice, are the people who think Bush has done one hell of a job over the last eight years and want to see it continue. They want to elect a dangerous, emotionally unstable, lying thug who will continue to keep this country in the death spin conservatives have put it in. The Radical Right is killing America; at this stage, Obama is our only hope of stopping them from doing it.

I think McCain did very well for himself tonight. Obama did not do poorly, but McCain's performance will inject some much needed enthusiasm into his base.

From browsing the conservative blogs, it appears that conservatives are getting fired up for McCain, not just against Obama. That was something McCain desperately needed, and he hit a home run on that front.

Again, Obama didn't do anything to hurt himself, except perhaps for that "above my paygrade" comment, which might come back to bite him in an ad later on. But I think he was able to reassure people who probably won't vote for him that it won't be the end of the world if he wins.

obama needs to go after mccain like a rabid pitbull and cut the pussy foot bs or we will be even more fucked than we are now.

The big winner here is Rick Warren - this completes his coronation as the new Jerry Falwell/Billy Graham, and the goto guy for getting the Big Ernie Seal of Approval.

I'm starting to fear that we are watching a rerun of 2004. Obama needs to attack -- hard. Now. All I seem to see on TV are McCain ads. They are all negative. How many fucking election cycles does it take for Democrats to figure out that negative ads work. Where are the ads with McCain saying "no one has been a bigger supporter of George W. Bush than I have" ???

Obama was thoughtful, honest and humble.

McCain was flippant and elementary.

John McCain is the man! $7000.00 tax credit for every kid. DAMN!!! He's got my vote!!!

Now. All I seem to see on TV are McCain ads. They are all negative. How many fucking election cycles does it take for Democrats to figure out that negative ads work. Where are the ads with McCain saying "no one has been a bigger supporter of George W. Bush than I have" ???
Posted by: Orson

You must not live in Ohio. Obama is putting his negative ads on local TV only, under the radar. He is hitting McCain hard on the DHL deal.

I can see from the comments here that McCain won the debate.
Good to know.
Posted by: Orwell

Dunce. The candidates were not questioned simultaneously. This was hardly what passes for a "debate." Of course, reality wouldn't matter for you.

To say nothing of the fact that the audience paid $500-$2000 to attend. It appears that Obama performed at a Republican fundraiser. Normal people didn't even have a chance at a ticket. Nice. I think he got rolled.

News: Stewing over Saddleback tickets | church, tickets, event, ticket, burger - OCRegister.com

BOY, do I hope your assessment is correct...I watched the WHOLE thing and was appalled by the what seemed like a totally different McShame than we've been seeing stumble and bumble in recent weeks...it felt to me as if Warren has set up Obama to be PUNKED while showcasing McShame and allowing him to continue to spew his stump speech points while warning Obama not to do so...I've tried to think of how the contrast would have been viewed Obama had gone last as a counter to the flip, manic, cutesy story telling, slogan filled appearance of McShame...

LOL at people who think last evening was a "debate"...course neither are those events that are labeled DEBATES...but for McShame it was a PERFORMANCE...and if there is ONE person in our disgusting MSM with the balls to call what went on there for the charade it was I might begin to believe in them. Warren set up Obama for whatever reason...McShame was far too quick out of the blocks in answering some questions and even trying to set up others - IMHO he KNEW what the questions would be. In the long term it may NOT matter or it could be the moment folks point to when saying "that's when things turned around for McShame"...it will be interesting to see.

McCain, by contrast, treated it as a straight campaign event: he had his stump speech talking points ready, and he was eager to cram as many of them into his 50 minutes as possible.

Yes, and it looked like something from twenty years ago. I mean, tax cuts? WTF?

All we learned is that white evangelicals who can afford $2,000 a head are still living in the past.

Obama, as the antichrist, seemed to do OK for being, you know, the antichrist.
.

LET'S GIVE EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA A 7 THOUSAND DOLLAR TAX CREDIT FOR EVERY CHILD THEY HAVE. LET'S GIVE THEM A 5 THOUSAND DOLLAR REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT TO GO OUT AND GET THE HEALTH INSURANCE OF THEIR CHOICE.- John McCain

http://rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-05.doc

@Candice

You've summed it up to a T.

Quit talking to yourself.
.

The questions were set up perfectly for McCain. He was speaking in front of a quasi-home crowd who applauded him regularly. He answered in simple, forceful, morally unambiguous terms. Yes, he was in campaign mode instead of conversation mode, but that was the point, and I think most voters wouldn't notice anyway. Because this "debate" was undoubtedly watched by evangelicals in high numbers, some of whom were perhaps still skeptical of McCain, I have to say McCain did everything right, even if Obama was clearly the more nuanced and intelligent candidate. Since when do evangelicals choose nuance and intelligence over black and white morality? We're going to see higher evangelical turnout than we expected, methinks.

Oh, well, from Orwell:

"Hmm. Someone is suppose to have experience before holding such an important position."

Consider: The incompetent thug who presently refers to himself as "president" has almost 8 years of experience, and he's still an incompetent thug.

McCain: lion thrown to the Christians

Obama: Christian thrown to the lions

Everyone seems to be forgetting that this was not a neutral audience or a cross-section of America; it was a Republican audience.

Obama did fine.

These were T-Ball questions for McCain. Even so, he still didn't actually answer some of them.
For the supreme court nominee question, for instance, McCain chose to answer with the list of 4 "liberal" supreme court justices, never actually explaining why he wouldn't have nominated them in the past as clearly implied by the question. It appeared that he chose to answer a different question.

For the orphan question, McCain again chose a non-answer. I mean, 140 Million orphans around the world, and his answer is to make adoption easier in the U.S.?? It would be a interesting social experiement, having the U.S. taking in 140 million orphans plus another 20 (or whatever) million per year.

His answer to the "what is your most important flip flop over the last 10 year" was straight stump speech material, Drill Drill Drill, with mentions of other energy production technologies and almost completely ignoring efficiency.

McCain also did not actually answer the stem-cell research funding question.

Glad to see you have settled on a handle, but I have to insist that you back up your allegations and accusations with something more than an "I'll ask" when challenged. --Mod]

This event shows the whole rise of the soc-called 'moderate' evangelicals, focused on other issues such as poverty, is pure BS. What lines got the biggest responses? Abortion, gay marriage, even McCain's war talk. Warren didn't bring up torture on his own, as if Jesus wouldn't have an opinion on it. If Warren's audience is typical of the evangelical moderates, forget 'em.

Nan, you don't even know what you're talking about. McCain's nominating speech is going to be held for bunch of fat cat party activitists in the traditional convention center setting. Obama is holding his speech in a football stadium so ordinary people can attend. Who's the elitist?

The members of Rick Warren's megachurch are said to be 60% registered Republican; while the US voting population in general is about 35-40% Republican.

Obama went to the event last night to talk to people; McCain, to show off. Obama was courting evangelicals; McCain takes them for granted.

Warren should have asked the geriatric war criminal McCain why he feels he was morally justified in slaughtering civilians in Viet Nam - why is his world view and political philosophy so superior that he was justified in exterminating Vietnamese people like insects and how he sleeps at night, knowing he incinerated or blew apart innocent women and children. Does McCain think that Asian people don't feel pain like us or that they don't have souls? Why weren't these questions asked?

Sort of like normal people don't have a chance at tickets to Obama's coronation.

Aw, NotMary, don't tell us you tried and couldn't get a ticket. We know how much you were looking forward to going. And if Hillary had been the nominee and had given her speech in the convention venue, you'd have been on the invite list, eh?

More to the point, why is Obama permitted to "write off" as undesirable any demographic that doesn't automatically think he's wonderful, that wants a little convincing? Is it beneath him to actively seek votes now?

Who's writing it off? He showed up last night and obviously took it seriously. Does the angry little movie playing in your head ever correspond with real-life events?

[Casey Morris on August 17, 2008 at 1:08 AM]

Casey had the right idea IMO. Events like this are essentially playing with house money for Obama.

Glad to see you have settled on a handle, but I have to insist that you back up your allegations and accusations with something more than an "I'll ask" when challenged. --Mod]

Nan, can you confirm from your co-workers that the church charged $500 to $2,000 per ticket for the event?

It's gotta be so weird commuting from Boston to Orange County for work. Do the airlines give you some kind of 10-ride pass?

Look shortstop, the Mod here insists that I post using a fake name, so I have picked one. Please use it.

Doesn't the waste of this campaign bother anyone else here? The increased costs of holding Obama's nomination in a stadium (since simply televising it is too restrictive) and the immense amounts of money being spent on ads and other garbage (Obama fashions?) are American consumerist waste taken to an extreme. This months Republicans boast of raising millions and everyone here is ecstatic that Obama has topped that, and no one cares that this is money being poured down a drain in an economy in which people cannot pay their mortgages or afford prescription drugs, or put gas in their cars to get to work. We should be embarrassed by this, not jubilant. Obama's hubris in selecting a venue that drains dollars for nothing more than a celebration of ego makes me sick. It should make more people angry, in my opinion.

To answer your question, the people writing off demographics are the commenters upstream who suggest that Obama should never have attended the event because all those religious people are all for McCain anyway, as if any group that must be persuaded should just be cast off -- the solution to any challenge in this election. And after you've ignored and ridiculed enough demographics there will only be one left -- people stupid enough to still be supporting Obama.

BTW, when Obama came to Rolla a couple of weeks ago for a town hall, I got in, no charge, no volunteering needed, no pressure to do so.

RollaMO, I'll ask.

Obama, fucker, you walked into an ambush. Wake the fuck up and don't let that happen again.

Anyone who couldn't realize that ten minutes in needs to give up their political junkie merit badge.

And Barack, the next time you are ambushed, don't try to retreat, or take cover. This is 11B 101 my friend. You drop that PC ruck of yours and charge into the attack firing back with all you've got. It's the ONLY chance you have to survive it...

Doesn't the waste of this campaign bother anyone else here?

Honey, everything about Obama's campaign--and about Obama--bothers you. Has it occurred to you that you might be able to mask your insanity and pass for a credible critic if you picked a few legitimate gripes and stuck to them, rather than continually writing incoherent rants that range from outright lies to petty whining to laughably inept spin?

You are patently unable to control yourself, which outs you every time as a raving loon rather than someone with considered objections to specific aspects of Obama's candidacy and policies.

Yes, the thing was supposed to be a "conversation," not a debate. But, a Q&A between two opposing political candidates in front of a live (paying) audience, and broadcast nationally, was inevitably going to be crushed into the more familiar pigeonhole of a televised presidential debate. There had to be a winner and loser in that context.

I wonder how different the "conversation" (and reactions to it) would have been had there been no live audience, and all three men had sat around the table, actually having a conversation. Even with the same questions and answers, I'm guessing Obama would have looked better.

But, that's not the way it occurred, so reactions (including mine) are what they are.

I tend to agree with Kevin that Obama will approach an "official debate" differently, at least I hope so. But, I hate those things anyway. They're no more debates than the Saddleback event was a conversation.

I'm going to vote for Obama, but I'd really like to see more conviction, details, and force from him.

Shortstop, I think naninboston is the PUMA who ate our Unity Pony.

I think people are forgetting that alot of the Christian nutjobs either think Obama is a Muslim or have doubts about what he is.

I've read alot of talk over on Digby that he shouldn't have attended. His "handlers" probably thought he had to attend this thing to try to put that to rest. Not that the mouthbreathers will vote for him now, but it takes some of the ammunition out of the emails and rumors circulating.

For that "see, I'm xtian" strategy to work takes some effort for the average American not to be stupid and fall for this stuff. I don't have alot of faith in the intelligence of the American voter.

Even so, the thing that always turned me off about Obama was his pandering to the religious nuts to "prove" he is one of them. It makes me want to puke.

He will lose this election. Dems are total losers with their triangulation, alienating the majority of the country that does align with them on the issues.

They both had two different goals: Obama's was to reassure Christians who may not be *that* familiar with him that he's a reasonable, mature, sane choice despite his youth. McCain needed to reassure Christians and energize the small subset that consider themselves Evangelicals (no they're not the same) that he's not so much of a maverick that he's a closet democrat (or secularist). In that sense I think it was a draw. Obama seemed reasonable, thoughtful and often gave answers within a theological context. McCain threw red meat.

Nobody's vote was decided at that event, it was more about the long game. I think Obama's performance left him well positioned on that end.

Especially telling was the way Obama and McCain responded to the questions. McCain gave quick easy answers (Evil? Defeat it!). Obama gave more complex answers (Evil? Confront it, bear witness, fight it). I think that's ultimately how many people will end up voting in the end. Do you think our problems can be solved by quick easy fixes or do you think things are going to require more complex solutions? The former = Vote McCain, the latter=Vote Obama. I believe this dynamic favors Obama.

I watched the entire event and I have to tell you that, even as a huge Obama fan who thinks McCain's performance up until yesterday had been pathetically laughable, Senator McCain beat Obama like a red-headed stepchild. He was quick and forceful, his answers were specific where Barack's were too often vague, and he used his personal history to connect with the audience in a way that escaped Barack entirely. And those who are writing the McCain advantage off either to the audience composition or Rick Warren either didn't watch or weren't paying attention. The audience applauded Obama early and frequently and Warren (who's hardly a James Dobson or Jerry Falwell), was easier on both participants than any of the primary debate moderators were. Finally, while I didn't get the sense that McCain necessarily knew the questions in advance, I could easily believe that someone on his staff, after listening to Obama's genteel musings, gave McCain a quick tip to butch it up. He came across as a heavyweight to Barack's flyweight, and if Obama can't pick it up a couple of big notches in time for the upcoming debates, he (and we) could be in real trouble, my friends.

Shortstop, when are you going to learn that attacking people is not the same as attacking issues?

Yes, I am strongly opposed to Obama and I have more than one or two reasons, because I am not a simpleton. As I have explained before, my goal is not conversion but self-expression. I have no illusions that anything I say will ever convince you to think about Obama differently. However, as someone who has read Kevin since he was Calpundit and inhabited many of these political websites for years, I am distressed by the suppression of opposing views critical of Obama on so many of them. I care about many things much more than I care about whether Obama wins or loses, and one of them is the value of participatory democracy via open expression on the internet. Bullying people via threats and ridicule or even exposure of personal details is just another form of suppression, like the Brownshirts and fear campaigns that exist in authoritarian states.

You can make this that kind of place. Intolerance is ugly whether it comes from the right or left. This business of characterizing disagreement as trolling and then editing it out is an abuse that has no legitimate justification, in or outside of someone's political campaign.

Go back and look at Digby's masthead picture of Howard Beale. He's mad as hell too. Is being angry really a sin?

Chris

Right On Bro, 4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years.

Obama has to win. If he doesn't this country is down the toilet. It might be anyway.

I spent a day this week trying to help a single mother with a decent job save her home. It seems her income is in decline (they cut out overtime) and her adjustable mortgage reset. Suddenly her house payment was about 1/2 her income. Housing values are in decline and there is no way for her to refinance. The prices of everything important (energy and food) are skyrocketing

This woman did everything right. The only mistake she made was not being in the very upper income category. You know the only people the Bush tax breaks help, the people who are the focus of all economic reporting and the only people the fed care about. The folks who aren't whining because their jobs are going away, their children no longer have a future, and their homes are in jeopardy.

The real impact of the decline of the American middle class on decent Americans is both real and horrible. Of course, folks who listen to talk radio or read the corporate media will only realize how they have been hosed when they lose their jobs and their homes.

Near the beginning of the discussion, Warren said something about listening. Obama clearly thought he was in a discussion and showed he was listening and considering what he heard.
McCain looked like he was just looking for openings to give pieces of his stump speech. He did not seem to be in a discussion when, from the very start, he turned to the audience and began his "my friends" talk.
Obama wasn't going to "win" in that venue but he was able to dispel myths and fears. McCain gained nothing but reassuring his base at the possible expense of some independents.
The venue showed the differences in style too. McCain brought the red meat and was determined to throw it out. Obama brought himself to a conversation with Warren.

Another blowjob for the "godly." From "brokeback" to "Saddleback."

Fuck that shit. Who says there's no 'religious litmus test' for public office in this country?

I would NEVER have prostrated myself at the feet of the drooling asshole...

McCain gave quick easy answers

No shit, this was a total set up. I especially enjoyed the 1970's western close facial close-up as McSame answered the evil question..."DEFEAT IT." Eat your heart out Clint Eastwood!

I care about many things much more than I care about whether Obama wins or loses

How about not letting our country be taken over by the fascists? Don't spite your country for you pride...

when are you going to learn that attacking people is not the same as attacking issues?

My irony meter just went through the roof. You really have no idea how your out-of-orbit rage against every aspect of Obama's being comes off to rational people, do you?

Is being angry really a sin?

Nope. As we keep telling you, targeted, supported and appropriate anger is part of all of our political discourse. Typically, you avoid examining someone's observations about the extent and unfocused nature of your rage by pretending that it's just Democrats' disregard for an expressed unhappiness with some policy or conduct of Obama's. How long can you go on pretending that when hundreds of people tell you the same thing, every one of them is wrong?

Bullying people via threats and ridicule or even exposure of personal details is just another form of suppression

Every time you whine about being "bullied" and "threatened," you lose still more credibility. If someone ever actually threatens you or reveals personal details you haven't freely offered up and posted yourself, you'll be taken seriously. As it is, this constant puling about being made fun of is part of the victimhood-as-sacrament complex you display here and everywhere else you post. If you can't handle strong disagreement--including ridicule of moronic and/or dishonest statements you're unable to defend--go play in the little kids' sandbox.

I've got six coming for dinner and gotta go chef it up now. Try and calm down and think about something besides Barack Obama for just one day.

*

This was advertised on CNN as a forum focusing on the faith of the candidates. The target audience was the Xianist demographic, whose total ignorance of all things Obama have allowed the mis(dis)informative republican noise machine to thrive.

The most Obama could have hoped for going in to the evening was to dispel the idea of being Muslim and having a Muslim agenda; and therefore he hd to promote himself as non-threatening to the Xianist target audience. The focus on change and moving in a different direction would have been too threatening. Change is scary.

To ensure he was non-threatening, he had to keep it low-key and deliberative. To you and me, this is Obama's off-game. But that particular audience would have been scared shitless if he were to go in there and tell them that they have been enabling an abusive administration and it was time for that kind of governance to end.

FWIW, the goal of coming across as a non-threat was successful, otherwise the rightjobs wouldn't be so gleeful this morning. To that end, last night might be playing out a rope-a-dope scenario that has yet to conclude.

*

Ron,

You are preaching to the choir....I hope you didn't take from my post that I wanted McCain to win.

I will vote for Obama, just like I always vote Dem, though I hold my nose voting for such political cowards. Not that it makes a difference with the outdated and stupid electorial college because I am in backwards fuck redneck Houston. But the pandering and always being on the defense, when the majority of the public aligns with most Dem positions, is sickening.

Obama should have gone into that "forum" confirming he was Christian, but with alot of "buts" in contrast to the thinking of most "Christians" in that audience.

He should have outlined his political position with reference to the bible to show the hypocrisy and fallacy of the thinking of most in that audience.

He should have been forceful about it so the mouthbreathers know he is steadfast in his position and is not pandering. WTF does offshore drilling have to do with Christianity, for example? They teed it up for him when they applauded and he whiffed.

He gained zero votes last night, and he and his handlers were fooling themselves going into it with that game plan.

Nice post.
Late to the party, but I am almost sure I heard Andrea Mitchell allude that McCain may have been able to hear the questions asked of Obama, thus preparing his own answers in the debate.

Anyone think this would not be intentional at the debate to give McCain an advantage, given the evangelical tendency to vote republican? And McCain's typical poor verbal expression skills?

When I heard her say it this morning on the talk show panel, I am again assured she found new respect for Barack Obama's candidacy when she went with other press members on his trip overseas....I previously heard her defend Obama on not being able to visit wounded troops in Germany due to the Pentagon's late intervention, attempting to set the record straight. She also said it was thought pretty strongly that McCain insiders in the Pentagon caused the last-minute no seeing the troops fiasco.

Debate= rigged==Rovian tactics by Bush/Rove's Steve Schmidt, in charge of the campaign for McCain/McShame.

McCain/Bush = dirty tricks, and probably spying on Democrats in the guise of patriot act.

I'm curious. Anybody here -- right or left -- consider themselves "extremists?" Nobody, I'll bet.

So, if you are a conservative, what would you say are characteristics of conservative extremists?

If you are a liberal, what are the characteristics of a liberal extremist?

Are all the extremists exclusively on the "other side?"

By his even asking these questions, do you think alibubba just "doesn't get it," is controlled by the "liberal press" or the "right-wing corporate media," "hates America" or is a "card-carrying member of the Nazi party?"

Just wondering.

(Answering "All of the above" suggests you salivate for a Nader-Barr ticket. Or just salivate randomly.)

That's the best you got, mhr? A quote from a butt-fucking ultra rich adulterer? Weak. Just like your chickenhawk heart. When are you guys going to put your ass where your pride is, like us Liberal Patriots do? Pansy ass...

The real loser in this "debate" was Rick Warren. He pretended to make this a neutral discussion but clearly it was rigged from the get-go. Warren now goes into my "slimy backhanded bastard" file.

John McCain is going to DEFEAT EVIL! There won't be any more evil after he gets done! Hoo boy, let's vote for him! NO EVIL! And did you know he was in Vietnam and they were mean to him there, except for that one Christian guy?

Hey, does that mean that if he gets elected he's going to restart the Vietnam War to take out all of the EVIL GUYS there? It must, right? Who's going to be his Secretary of Defense - John Rambo?

John McCain is a blithering old cartoon character running on fumes. If he's elected it means this country is done, and stick a fork in it. If a crankier, older Dumbya Bush is what you're looking for, vote for McCain. I won't be.

Obama said he was going to defeat evil too, just in a slower, more nuanced way. How can you vote for anyone who believes in the concept of evil as a force in the world, who doesn't laugh at the framing of such a question?

Both of these guys are scary.

McCain crashed five airplanes as a military pilot. Five! So how can we trust him to pilot our nation?

McCain claimed the reason he wants to be president is to "Inspire", in which case he should cast his vote for Obama.
Seriously, a 1970's has-been versus the 2008 rising sun - who's going to inspire the next generation? The man whose strongest support comes from people over 60 or the man that asks a new generation to believe in themselves.

I don't think it was intentional, but Obama may have actually helped lower his expectations for the upcoming debates. Whereas folks may have though "Oh Obama will kicks the ass of stumbling McCain", now they will think that McCain will wipe the floor with Mr. Nuance.

Heck, it lowered my expectations and I'm an Obama homer.

The key, of course, is that Obama actually studies hard for the debate, learns McCain's record back and forth, and is prepared to crisply point out any inconsistencies/lies that McCain puts forth.

This "debate' was further proof, however, that one of the presidential debates should be at a podium. The current "table" crap is a boon to McCain.

I don't think it was intentional, but Obama may have actually helped lower his expectations for the upcoming debates. Whereas folks may have though "Oh Obama will kicks the ass of stumbling McCain", now they will think that McCain will wipe the floor with Mr. Nuance.

Heck, it lowered my expectations and I'm an Obama homer.

The key, of course, is that Obama actually studies hard for the debate, learns McCain's record back and forth, and is prepared to crisply point out any inconsistencies/lies that McCain puts forth.

This "debate' was further proof, however, that one of the presidential debates should be at a podium. The current "table" crap is a boon to McCain.

Whilst, some may try to score last evening, it really was not as much about Obama v. McCain as it was about Obama v. republican smears of his character and McCain v. republicans who distrust his conservative values. Each man had goals separate and apart from scoring against the other; and had to present their case with Warren and to the larger audience. And, within all of this we have an ir-responsible corporate media which is trying to define its own role in this drama by constantly framing the 'political reality' in a way that they appear to be information experts on what is really going on.

As, I listened separately to CNN, Fox and MSNBC not one time did any of the pundits focus on the 12% of the American population who hold beliefs that Obama is a Muslim, or the ever vigilent campaign of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, Thos. Sowell and the others on the right who are daily injecting in legitimate forums that Obama is a radical or he is scary or he isn't 'one of us'. Nor, did they focus on the previous Dems who failed to reach out to the Evangels like Gore or Kerry. Instead, they approached Obama and his performance in the same type of 'vacuum' of thinking which has led the Obama campaign to accept an invitation to attend Saddlebrook, these pundits simply continue to box Obama in the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' position; when here he is expansive and offers thoughtful answers (prompted by Warren himself not to offer up 'talking points') he is not being concise and crisp, and when is speaks in short crisp sentences, they then accuse him of lacking details.

I tend to believe that what won Obama the primary over Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Edwards and Clinton was not mere accident or by luck. He had a reasonable plan and he followed through daily with actions that lead to his present success, even if those pundits yesterday seem un-able to confront the reality that Obama has to have been doing something 'right' for him to be on the verge of clinching the Democratic nomination. There is in summary, two distinct measurements going on between the Obama camp and the McCain camp within many segments of the corporate media; one where Obama is generally defined as frequently being in a position of 'doing something' which isn't quite perfect, and one where McCain is generally defined as a culmination of a known biography which repels questions about his accepted 'fitness' to govern and lead.

While many here, may be unreflective of the populace as a whole; the scores of 'low information' voters will make their decisions from this ever-present theme and narrative which unconsciously presents Obama as never being 'solid' and McCain as being 'O.K.' And, should the chattering of these pundits and the corporate media continue along this 'stream of consciousness' I'm really quite skeptical, if some Americans (especially those who might be looking to redeem their poor choice in Bush) won't be 'influenced' by the inherent bias that may come across in proven and effective subliminal messages over these next 80 days.

And, if so, I do believe McCain not only will win, but he may just win in a spectacular fashion; and once again the people will 'get the leadership' that it deserves, and the corporate media and those it represents will gain, once again the leadership that it demands.

"Rising sun?" Simmer down there, Alice. You're gushing all over the thread. BTW, that's just a picture on the bumper sticker. You don't have to believe/worship it, you know.

The overall view is that Obama came to talk, McCain showed up to campaign . . . . sadly the audience was already his and he STILL failed to move the Peter Meter . . . .

I think McCain used most of his time and crowd tested lines and stories in a discussion that was on against the Olympics. I'll be curious to see the media's reaction when he uses them again at the first debate. And then again at the second debate. And again at the third.
Can he get away with using the same POW stories and simplistic, black and white language when the questions ask for more than his stump speech?

I was most disappointed in Warren, whom I had expected to go beyond the usual old right-wing evangelical issues like abortion and gay marriage to what has been touted as the new evangelical issues of poverty and stewardship.

Obama seemed relaxed, engaged and thoughtful.

John "Wet Start" McCain was stiff, nervous and parroting standard Republican Talking Points (tm).

As McCain went on, I started to notice that Warren was asking them the same questions, so the McCain team, watching from the wings, undoubtedly had time to craft answers in advance.

Wet Start's answer to what "rich" means was indeed rich. "I'm not going to raise taxes." Huh?

Wet Start also didn't have much trouble bringing up his POW time. I think the MSM definitely needs to be called on the meme that Wet Start doesn't like to talk about it or bring it up. He brings it up at every single opportunity, and some that aren't even opportunities. "What do you think of Pittsburg" leads to his POW ordeal? WTF???

Back to Warren, I was also disappointed that he only asked his questions from his prepared list. He did not follow up, he did not engage the candidates in true discussion.

Tho Obama may not have made inroads in the evangelical right, anyone else who watched (like my political junkie husband and I) saw something completely different from what many posters here saw.

Look the religious right want to turn the United States into a banana republic, where religion controls the people.

The economic elites want the same thing.

The whole thing is based upon impoverishing the masses. That's a big part of what $4 oil is all about.

America is based upon one principle FREE CONTRACT. In such a society bargaining power is everything.

The rightwingnuts use religion as a means to induce the masses to surrender their bargaining power. Religion in politics is the ultimate red herring. As we become poorer and poorer, this becomes harder to do, but then they resort to extremism.

If McCain wins the next election this country will be Brazil before he leaves office eight years hence. The missery is only just beginning.

After 8 years of some of the worst mismanagement in the history of the world, the fact that so many people are still even considering McCain or voting republican just tells you how fucking stupid they are.

The dollar is worth 50cents, the treasury was thoroughly ransacked, gasoline is $4 a gallon, oil is $100 more than it was 8 years ago and we are more dependent upon it than ever despite the fact that it funds all of our would be enemies, median family income will be almost 10% lower than it was eight years ago come the next inaugeration, two American Cities have had to have been evacuated, the nations infrastructure is disolving into sand, the cost of food and education have gone through the roof while a record number of Americans have lost their homes, we are experiencing a series of rolling financial meltdowns, our food is increasingly unsafe to eat, one great American city has been lost, we are hated and have more enemies than we have ever had, our military is over streched, Russia which only eleven years ago was on life support, now violates one our would be allies with impunity.

After all of that, only a jack ass or an idiot would vote for McCain and another eight abysmal years.

Things like religion don't mean shit under the circumstances. They are used to distract you from all of the above.

Be an idiot and go with McCain if you want. This nation will get what it deserves, widespread, massive, permanent squalor and unending misery.

Obama’s decision to speak out against the war in Iraq in October 2002 was “the most gut wrenching decision” he’s ever made? While running unopposed for re-election to the Illinois State Senate in a district that has voted 90% Democratic? In a city that was preparing to give 82% of its votes to the most vocal opponent of the build-up to the war in the United States Senate at the time (Dick Durbin)? Give me a break. It was more like the easiest call he ever made.

A few points. Had it been a debate, Obama would have adjusted his tone and demeanor to keep McCain from trying to out-bluster him. He was sandbagged when he responded like it was a kitchen table conversation while McCain took it as a campaign event. It made me wonder whether McCain is even capable of speaking without giving a speech. In Obama's favor, I don't see how anyone can come away from that thinking that Obama acts like a celebrity or that his fame has gone to his head.

Warren was able to frame the discussion so that Obama came across as anti-life and a tax raiser. By allowing McCain to get away with distortions (i.e. raising taxes on the wealthy is class warfare), Obama did himself a disservice. BTW, McCain said that he considers wealthy to mean a family income of over 5 million a year. Then he said, it doesn't matter because I am against all tax increases. O.K. fine, he believes that so why didn't either Obama or Warren ask him how he would manage the bloated deficit that has contributed to devaluation of the dollar. Obama walked into this trap. His inexperience is showing, sadly.

The forum scared me to death. On the one hand, there's a thoughtful candidate who has clearly thought issues through and is willing to ask for some sacrifices from the American people, and on the other you have a blowhard who can't stop talking about the torture techniques employed on him in Vietnam, and who took credit for opposing torture when in fact he voted to give Bush the authority to torture people. And McCain says everyone should be rich? The only rich people are those who make $5 million a year? Has he ever been to a country where people make $300 a year? (Since his N. Vietnam days, I mean.) McCain's foreign policy is all circa 1980, if that, like his odd musical tastes. C'mon! A little fact-checking, MSM. And would someone please throw Pat Buchanan off the air!

McCain was throwing out campaign stump lines throughout the whole debate. You could tell, with the first two questions (that weren't typical policy questions), that McCain had to actually sit there and ponder for a bit. After that every question pertained to an element of a candidate's policy positions so it was easy to fall back on the answers he has given for the past year. Who cares if he never really answered the question...the answer was vague enough and there was no time given for follow-ups that it didn't matter.

Obama, you can tell, actually processes the question and thinks through his answers. That's why he pauses and seems to take longer to answer. It's not a fault...it's to his credit.

One's the captain of the football team, the other's captain of the debate team. The choice's couldn't be more different. Depends on what you want from a President at this time. More of the same or a pivot. There's no "wrong" answer. We will get what we deserve.

Do you dare hear a perspective that will tell you that YOU are the problem? That it does not matter whether McCain or Obama win? By a 28 year military veteran who teaches international relations and history at Boston college and who fought in Vietnam and lost a son in Irag? IF you have the courage, goggle: Bill Moyers: Interview with Andrew Bacevich and find out how offbase every single one of you are. He clearly indicates that the choice made by this culture almost 40 years ago has lead us to this mess. And that there is NO difference in the parties.
Enjoy (if you have the courage).

Kevin, you rationalize Obama's performance as an intimate evening with Warren. This is such a weak rationale. No matter what the forum is, whenever these candidates appear together they will be compared and contrasted. A voter who takes this election seriously will scrutinize to the nth degree where the candidates stand on the major issues of our times.

The question on when a baby begins to have human rights requires an absolute answer. Obama really turned me off with his 'above my pay grade' response. Where is his convictions? All I got was a bunch of smoke on a very clear day.

Also, he clearly lied on the decision to go to war in Iraq as being a very difficult decision. He didn't have a vote as he was not even a U.S. senator then.

The difference in experience, convictions and principles between both candidates is like night and day. Rationalize all you want, but I know there is that queasy feeling in the stomachs of all Obama supporters that Obama is on a downward slide.

There are people here that say Obama accomplished what he came for and that is to make inroads into the evangelical vote. He may have done that but please realize that the event is televised and therefore open to scrutiny by the whole electorate. There were very big questions that required clear answers. McCain came out ahead.

I really don't know why Obama is even a candidate. He has never won a debate yet and he actually only got nominated because the dems wanted to get rid of the Clintons and winning a bunch of caucuses in red states. I remain astounded by the polls and the media has destroyed what was once known as journalism. John McCain spent many years in the military where he learned his method of leading (and answering questions). He is not going to sit down and have a one on one philosophical conversation when there is a very important contest at stake. Call him whatever you want but he is commanding which is one thing Obama is not. Obama needs to go back to writing books and giving speeches...not leading the most powerful nation in the world.

If this was a "set-up," then Obama should have been smart enough to NOT attend. He did stutter and took too long to answer the questions. McCain did a great job and seemed far too ready for these questions (wonder if he had access to them prior to the meeting)....however....being a psych nurse, I am not comfortable with Presidential nominee who has been tortured and is a war veteran. He's obsessed with war, terrorists, "radical Islamic extremeists" etc. I take care of these people, and they can "go off" at any time, triggered by who knows what and need emergent treatment, medication and psychological.

If Americans have any sense at all, they will not vote for or elect a potentially mentally ill person. Do you really trust this person to be in charge of your country? I would hope not!

Please, Fat White Guy, what I wrote may have been "ASS-inine", but don't act like butt-fucking offends you...

Reality Check: For all of us who are rational, discerning voters, Obama clearly came away as the "victor". This was no debate, nor should it be analyzed as such. HBO clearly excelled in parsing the issues and setting the table for action. Let's lighten up, Dems -- this guy's a real winner and we need to work hard to move the (new) ship of state along!

"There are people here that say Obama accomplished what he came for and that is to make inroads into the evangelical vote. He may have done that but please realize that the event is televised and therefore open to scrutiny by the whole electorate. There were very big questions that required clear answers. McCain came out ahead."

Posted by: cencarnacion
My response:
I doubt Obama made many inroads with diehard evangelicals, but I differ with your opinion about the general electorate. For many moderates who are undecided, this forum made it more clear that McCain has very little to offer other than the same old Bush rhetoric and political pandering...in sound bites, no less. Many, many of us prefer to be spoken to as adults knowing that complex problems/questions demand thought...and cannot be answered in three words. We're also looking for a leader who has the ability to allow people of differing frame of references to weigh in on the thought process and the Democratic process....clearly an Obama strength.
Now, if you're the kind of guy who wants to hear, "I know how to win wars, by golly! or...Drill, baby, Drill!"...then McCain is clearly your candidate of choice. I, on the other hand, was totally turned off by his sixth-grade-like rah, rah, answers; and his inability to move on from his 45 year old story.

Where this debate will matter is among evangelicals and Catholics, which was the whole point of the thing in the first place. Now evangelicals and Catholics will feel much more comfortable voting for McCain and much less comfortable voting for Obama then they were before. Remember, McCain's support from evangelicals was said to be lukewarm. It's not lukewarm anymore, not after this. And that's very bad news for Obama.

"The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.

By showing that Bush has put the country on a path pointing to permanent war, ever increasing debt and dependency, and further abuses of executive authority, Obama can transform the election into a referendum on the current administration's entire national security legacy. By articulating a set of principles that will safeguard the country's vital interests, both today and in the long run, at a price we can afford while preserving rather than distorting the Constitution, Obama can persuade Americans to repudiate the Bush legacy and to choose another course."
--Andrew Bacevich, July 1, 2008

When I read this I wondered how many evangelicals are interested in the big picture of our future instead of wedge issues like Roe Vs. Wade? I wonder if the electorate is ready for a referendum on Iraq since so few have had to sacrifice for this war. As Bacevich points out patriotism is not putting a magnetic ribbon your car that was made in China. So why the same old talking points at this Saddleback church except for the fact that McCain knows he is talking to people who don't want to sacrifice anything and are happy with the status quo.

Professor Obama gave long stuttering answers like an intellectual. What a loser. The Democrats need to start getting serious. This guy is just a smoother version of Gore and Kerry, but he's still a loser.

Well I did finally catch the whole thing thanks to the reruns.

You can't fault Obama for trying to knock a few points off the normal Evangelical spread in favor of the more conservative candidate. But I would say that, while the strategy was well conceived, the execution was deplorable. The sour grapes analyses above from many of the Obama supporters tends to confirm my impression as to whose night it was.

Obama split hairs and was at great pains to carefully choose his words and avoid revealing his positions. McCain, by contrast, was frank and forthright. You may not agree with him but you know where he stands. There is a rootedness and genuineness that can't be learned or faked. It reminded me of nothing so much as Adlai Stevenson vs. Dwight Eisenhower. The one had the brains and the other the character.

If Obama continues on with this tendency to intellectualize and parse words as if he were at a cosmopolitan salon or his oral dissertation examination, he will blow this thing in a year when no Democrat can lose.

Well I did finally catch the whole thing thanks to the reruns.

You can't fault Obama for trying to knock a few points off the normal Evangelical spread in favor of the more conservative candidate. But I would say that, while the strategy was well conceived, the execution was deplorable. The sour grapes analyses above from many of the Obama supporters tends to confirm my impression as to whose night it was.

Obama split hairs and was at great pains to carefully choose his words and avoid revealing his positions. McCain, by contrast, was frank and forthright. You may not agree with him but you know where he stands. There is a rootedness and genuineness that can't be learned or faked. It reminded me of nothing so much as Adlai Stevenson vs. Dwight Eisenhower. The one had the brains and the other the character.

If Obama continues on with this tendency to intellectualize and parse words as if he were at a cosmopolitan salon or his oral dissertation examination, he will blow this thing in a year when no Democrat can lose.

Perhaps Obama felt it was important for him not to be seen as being overly confrontation with this character, and that's where his style was coming from.

I don't know if our side can profit from a lot of our politicians playing it the other way, but if a lot of conservative Christians aren't motivated to come out and vote on their issues this year, it seems like a reasonable conslusion to make that Obama wouldn't profit by poking the hornets' nest.

I've written before that I think Obama might be getting pushed around by the Republicans. I didn't watch much at all of this event, so I don't know if Obama hit any icebergs I didn't see, but from what I watched he presented himself very well according to his normal style and there were no incidents of embarassing stuttering (as the 9:20 PM comment claims).

It's entertaining how Obamans think The Chosen One is all about intellect. Obama got run over by the Straight Talk Express last night, and that's all there is to it. This "can't lose" election is slipping away from the Dems, and come Nov 4 John McCain will be elected President. Hillary was a lock, but you know.....that would have been to easy. Right?

McCain went yard, last night. He went yard!

Best performance of his political career.

He has changed the dynamic of the race by establishing himself as a communicator on a par with Obama; in many ways he surpassed him by being clear and crisp in his answers and showing how his unique personal history makes him a special leader for special times

Obama was thoughtful and intelligent sounding, but he picked his words carefully as he always does. He did not connect well with the audience there or the larger audience on TV.

At least a TKO if not a knockout for McC.

Only upside for BO: he has succeeded in lowering expectations for the debates.

It was a marvelous format. One that really allowed us to contrast the positions of the candidates and have them talk about their own views without going after the other guy.

Obama seems to have to say unless he is comparing McCain to Bush. Of course in front of a religious audience he would reveal his true self at his peril. We can leave that to McCain’s surrogates. Expect a full frontal on Obama's position on abortion this week. Voting for infanticide is not typically calculated to get you votes except in some rather marginal communities. He lied about partial birth abortion as well. He has never voted against it and only started changing his tune regarding it after he got the nomination.

The religious trash that calls abortion "infanticide" wouldn't have voted for Obama, anyways, so it's difficult to cede too much significance to this event.

"As McCain went on, I started to notice that Warren was asking them the same questions, so the McCain team, watching from the wings, undoubtedly had time to craft answers in advance."

Actually, it turns out that McCain was NOT in a soundproof room, arriving later than he was supposed to, so he did indeed hear the questions. All the talk about his "preparation" is out the window.

Damn S.O.B. even cheats his base! If he cheats them, you KNOW he'll cheat you!

Ed

Ummm... did you watch his debates with Hillary? You have no doubt he will pick a different style than he had at the faith forum? Really? Because I seem to remember him looking at Tim Russert for two hours while, looking for any sign of approval, when he was supposed to be talking to the people.
If he was going to adopt a better speaking style, that probably would've come in handy a couple months ago when he bit it in Ohio and Texas because of sloppy performances in debates.

Nice to see Obama supporters elevating the level of discourse with their "progressive" language. There were more F bombs than I could count.v

Mitchell is already being called for not observing the "McCain Rules".
They seem to be enumerated here:
http://phoenixnewtimes.com/content/printVersion/848709

In any case, Obama seems to be doing a Barney Greenwald, waiting for McCain to produce the ball bearings. From the sound of the above, it won't be long.

Hillary was a lock, but you know.....that would have been to [sic] easy.

Sigh...I love this one. She was a lock in that she had sky-high negatives that were bolted in. Before the primaries, almost 50 percent of the country said it wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances, and that number only rose after January.

But in her supporters' minds, she shall always be remembered as the invulnerable candidate, the truly solid choice that got thrown away by those recalcitrant Dems who just wouldn't listen. It's fine to criticize Obama, but can we skip the silly mythmaking about the Clintons?

Well said, shortstop. I agree. But a question: When did it become "fine" to critcize Obama? Also, do the WM moderators know of this interesting new policy you are revealing?

Hmmmm, Pat. I can't speak for the mods, but lots of people criticize Obama here without getting moderated. Why do you suppose it keeps happening to you?

When did Pat's panties get into a bunch?

When did Pat's panties get into a bunch?

About 1962.

A woman named Michelle called into Air America Radio this afternoon, stating she has a videotape from the religious right's event, with timed notions, that reveals in full that McCain was able to hear the questions to Obama----and thus prepare answers.

David Bender, sitting in for Rachel Maddow encouraged the caller to put that video on YouTube;
she said she would. She said she also had a timed turnpike receipt which shows Davis and McVain (no pun intended) lied about the time that they arrived at the church event. Having been present at a different time than they claim, they heard the questions.

Happily, I also heard simultaneously on CNN there are very strong speculations about McCain cheating. It was positioned in those very terms: CHEATING

My internet provider is down continually, and I am living on borrowed time posting this.