I sure called this one wrong!

Sure the $5 mil comment and a couple others will be made into Dem campaign ads but over all, McCain saw the stitches on that fastball and put it over left center.............

I think that Obama showed himself to be much more nuanced than McCain. Now you may not like that in a leader, but when it comes to complex issues with complicated impacts, I'd like my leader to not believe the world is black-and-white, and not every tool is a hammer.

McCain did quite well.

Obama still has to find a way to overcone the Bradley Factor.

I don't think an answer filled with uh's and pauses is nuanced. 

I'm quite sure McCain doesn't view every problem as a nail Mat

*snicker*

I watched, although I am not sure why some evangelical minister now qualifies as some high and mighty moderator for the American political process, and both candidates answered questions to the best of their abilities what the religious find pertinent these days. When does life begin? How do you define marriage? Who are your closest advisers? What mistakes have you made that you'll own up to?

I was underwhelmed by the whole affair. If this is what passes as political discourse these days who cares who wins. I guess I missed the health care questions. The questions on how to stimulate job growth in the private sector must have been replaced with a litany of questions concerning faith based subsidy needs and non-profit tax benefits.

When did running for President require a religious litmus test? The Puritans would be darned proud to know how much influence hell fire and brimstone still muster in the New World order of the 21st century.  Tonight's nationally televised demonstration confirms that this nation is still searching for an Age of Enlightenment.

I read the transcripts and I thought both candidates had pretty good answers.  I do think Senator McCain sort of missed the boat on the question that was something like,

"If you are wealthy, how much money do you make in a year?  Give us a figure."

First of all, he didn't give Pastor Rick a chance to ask the question before he launched into an answer.  Then, when he did answer, he didn't give a figure.  He started saying things about, "Well, in some places if you have a house and a car and a job, you're considered rich."  But that wasn't the question. I kept thinking, ahhh, come onnnnnn. Give us a figure, Senator. I would admit that it was a pretty tough question to answer for a Republican.

The other thing that REALLY caught my attention was the question about intervention in Georgia. It's been pointed out by several news agencies that Senator McCain's comments on Georgia were not spontaneous, but came almost word-for-word from Wikipedia's entry on the country of Georgia.

Having been a contributor on Wikipedia for three years, I'd say it's pretty risky to to get your foreign policy knowledge from Wikipedia.  Senator McCain used the same comments he got from Wikipedia to answer this question from Pastor Rick.  I'd don't think the Senator's answer was bad. It just doesn't strike me as being something the potential leader of the free world should do.  Wikipedia is written by volunteers from all over the world and there is definitely bias as well as bad, wrong and even idiotic information given on individual topics. I saw the entry and compared it with Senator McCain's in it was almost dead-on the same words.

Other than that, I think the forum was civil. There's no doubt about it. When these guys were asked about their moral failings, they dug deep and spilled the beans on themselves. I was impressed with both of them. On the definition of marriage, I thought both of their answers were very wobbly, ill constructed and shaky. They could both do a lot better. Obama's answer about which Supreme Court Justice he would not have picked was a whole lot better than McCain's, in my opinion. Obama was most gracious about the conservative justices and McCain was just point blank lining up liberal justices for the firing squad.  Not a very thoughtful response. It was all emotion, no substance.

Skipped it.

Obama refused to answer a question because is "was above his pay grade".  WOw.  What does he think he is running for, neighborhood watch commander???

I'm quite sure McCain doesn't view every problem as a nail Mat

In fact, most problems he doesn't recognize as problems at all.

Wow, HM--from what you described, it sounded like a pretty interesting Q & A.  Sorry I missed it.

Weeelll, not that sorry.  I'm at a really interesting part of my book right now.  Hubby watched Batman Begins and I read "Jane and the Man of the Cloth."  It's a mystery novel set in Regency times, with Jane Austen as the heroine.  Yeah, it's cheese, but a really good cheese, like Munster.

Anyone know where can I see the transcripts?

Adam

I wish we could take religion completely out of politics.  It won't happen though because some people need to be told by their spiritual leaders how to vote.  Lazy, uninformed, fearful people.

Cat

Your cheese is better quality than my cheese.  Ahem, Big Brother.  My secret shame.

Surprisingly, I thought McCain did a pretty good job. He seemed to feel the most comfortable and did the better job of answering the questions. Obama needs to step his game up and not let McCain gain any momentum.

McBush benefits from the same "soft bigotry of low expectations" that Shrub enjoyed.  The amazing thing about the tap-dancing elephant is *NOT* how well it dances.

This kinda reminds me of that old Hymn where they sing: Gimme that old time religion, it's good enough for me!

jfrancais: "Surprisingly, I thought McCain did a pretty good job. He seemed to feel the most comfortable and did the better job of answering the questions. Obama needs to step his game up and not let McCain gain any momentum."
 

McCain sounded good, until you actually thought about his answers. Anybody earning less than $5 million a year is "middle class"? It is acceptable for religious groups to receive federal funds and descriminate against people (based on religion, or any other reason)? He wouldn't confirm Supreme Court justices that he voted to confirm? He would "defeat" "evil" (who gets to decide what "evil" is, and what can be used to "defeat" it)? He may have said what the crowd wanted to hear, but not every voter thinks like the people in the audience.

McBush gave his standard campaign stump speech to a room crowded with his supporters.  Has he ever drawn that many before?  That's why Obama turned down the "town-hall" sideshows.  McBush, on his own, can't draw nearly that many people, and they're *NOT* an unbiased crowd.

Mattloch, I am guilty of RF's description of "soft bigotry".

I missed the thing. Probably glued to Olympics. I have seen enough snippets to see that McCain was in his element, a fundamentalist audience monitored by a preacher. Put me in a gaggle of fundies and I'll be a hit, too if I say "life begins at conception."

The forum was discussed on Meet The Press without making much of an impression as far as issues are concerned. It has occurred to me that McCain may have shot himself in the foot. Yeah, he made a hit with fundies. He may also got himself associated with George. It's Bush's fundie religious agenda the helped get the country in the mess that it's in now.

Bottom line: I don't think it was either a forum or a political debate. 

McCain laughed and even allowed immediately as to how people like yourself would jump upon his $5 mil comment while he was saying it (which was obviously meant to mean defining  "rich" is like defining morality -- it lies in eyes of the beholder more times than not).

The only thing this proves is how knee-jerk our politics have become. He knew what the hard core Dems would do with it as soon as he said it. While maybe not the smartest thing to do in a campaign I think he may well have said it just to see the reaction (an obvious exaggeration to elicit a response much like his 100 year war comment). We will see what the Dems do with it but I suspect it will play like his 100 year commentt has. To people that actually think for themselves, it serves to show just how politically blinded and Pavlovian his opponents actually are.

When Democrats have Joe Biden in as a running mate (if not Kaine) they will quickly find out what half-joking off the cuff remarks can do to a print version sound bite driven media campaign BTW........

McCain was a hit with the audience of fundamentalist evangelicals.

Like Bush etal, who pander for the religious vote, McCain wins the battle for the heart of fundies hands down.

That alone is reason enough to not elect McCain.

Watching McCain pander to the fundies was painful.

The last thing the country needs is another panderer.

The nation more than ever needs someone in charge with the brains to make intelligent decisions and the balls to marginalize special interests whether it be money grubbing corporations or religious factions looking to influence government. 

Obama may have gained no points with the fundies but wins a few with those who are tired of government bending to the Moral Majority, Falwells, Haggards and  other evangelistic charlatans for having the courage to stand before the enemy and be quietly reviled for his unpopular pro choice stance.

The question is, is the vote of the evangelical bloc a key, win-or-lose factor in the election of either candidate?

Sure, the evangelical vote may have decisively swung the election for Bush, but will it get McCain in office?

Anyone know where can I see the transcripts?

Pastor Rick & Kay Warren's Newsroom.

NOt sure what religion has to do with jabbing a scissors in the back of a babys skull before pulling if from the womb in order to "save" the mother.  Allowing an aborted fetus that survives the abortion to eventually die in a trash can is somehow a "religious issue", is beyond me.   The Empty Suit can't even answer when he thinks a human has rights..  Is it when it has been thrown in the trash can?? Apparently not. Good grief Barrack, just say what you feel.  A child in a womb doesn not have rights, even outside that womb, unless the mother allows the right to live...  If the mother wants that child dead, and it survives the procedure, it still has no right to live.  That is not above your pay grade Empty Suit.  You voted for this....

Some of the conservative commentary of the forum rang true for me.  What they said was that McCain actually avoided being personal and did the opposite of what Pastor Rick asked (Don't use your stump speech). Senator McCain did anyway, including his frequently told story of his encounter with a Vietnamese guard who was a Christian (a touching story of merciful goodness, by the way) while he was a prisoner of war. But that was pure stump, and commentators said that Obama really had the edge because he "participated in a personal conversation" with Christians and McCain did a stump speech "in a town hall meeting."

You know, that's what I got from the transcripts, too.  Obama was talking to THOSE people in Pastor Rick's church and I could sense it even from reading it instead of seeing it. It make me think back to my days as a Christian and remember how  empowering it was to hear another Christian get specific on how they struggled and had doubts over an issue that was at odds with their faith and how they arrived at the position they finally took.  Of the two, Obama just plain blew me away when he specifically responded to that very delimma Pastor Rick posed.  I didn't think Senator McCain seemed very comfortable talking about his religious faith but Obama was as warm and comfortable with his as any Christian I ever knew.

I thought of our fellow blogger, Katetak, as I read this transcript. It was only yesterday he was so distraught over, seemingly, not hearing anyone speak to the issue of genocide and persecution of Christians and he was pointing the finger at Senator Obama because of it.  Well, it was Obama who went into great depth describing all his frustration with exactly what Katetak was talking about and what Senator McCain barely touched on.  I hoped Katetak saw the forum. I couldn't say he'd be satisfied, but at least he'd know that Senator Obama has the same frustrations on the issue as so many Americans do.

 NOt sure what religion has to do with jabbing a scissors in the back of a babys skull before pulling if from the womb in order to "save" the mother.  Allowing an aborted fetus that survives the abortion to eventually die in a trash can is somehow a "religious issue", is beyond me. 

I figured someone would post an extreme distortion of Obama's or McCain's comments and, thanks to RonMexico, my prediction was correct.  Makes me wonder if he even saw the program. It is so absurd that either one of these candidates would support the scenario you describe, it simply take my breath away. You clearly haven't listened to either candidate's view on abortion.  What do you gain by this kind of distortion?

What do you gain by this kind of distortion?

It bolsters his otherwise empty argument, Ray, and the emotional content helps disguise the fact that they're lying.

Notice the "quote marks" around the word "save."  The woman's life is *ALWAYS* at least secondary if not further down the list to the anti-abortion crowd.

That's what bothered me, Random. If you have a wife, sisters, female children, aunts, or females friends, what make their life less important than the fetus growing in their body?

I've done genealogy research for 37 years and one thing you notice is the HUGE number of women who died in child birth. It was the #1 cause of death of women below the age of 40 in this country well up into the middle of the 20th century. In 98 per cent of the cases both the female and the fetus died. So, with abortion an issue, what makes the fetus the top priority?  If a woman already has children, what's to become of those children when the mother sacrifices her life for the sake of what is mostly likely a child who is so sickly, s/he will probably not live anywhere near the life expectancy of healthy children.  What does RonMexico want - a house full of children with no mother and and one of the children constantly prone to a multitude of health problems, or a home with a mother taking care of healthy children?

I can tell you what my choice would be. I'd opt to save the mother's life every time. Let RonMexico sacrifice his female relatives if he wants. But I hope he then vows to take responsibility for all the motherless children and the sickly child that is left over.  It's just plain common sense that you don't sacrifice the entire family's welfare by giving a mother the death sentence in a pregnancy that has gone wrong.

FWIW, ronmexico was refering, I think, to this.

"Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion — even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion.  Obama's legislative actions in 2003 — denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions — were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress..."

So, in effect, he supports killing babies that survive a "botched" abortion.  But, you could argue that that is just as well because baby momma obviously don't want her.

One area where I strongly agreed during this sit down discussion was when Pastor Rick Warren called for a more civil discussion of issues in the public marketplace of ideas. There is no place in any discussion for demonizing an issue, or the people who hold a point of view regarding the issue. I know it sounds great on talk radio to bandy about slurs targeting specific interest groups, or on the blogs punching in keystrokes to do the very same thing in an effort to draw out gullible suckers and  play the name game, but it solves nothing and only alienates people from one another where no solution is attainable.

I'm not sure what RonMexico's rant is about other than to mischaracterize the question posed to Barack Obama and demonize people who believe in a woman's right to medical privacy and choice under the law. Barack Obama's response that he did not feel qualified to answer definitively when life begins seemed very reasonable to me. Given the startling numbers of people incarcerated in this country and the crying need for additional foster care for thrown away kids it seems counter productive to stigmatize half of our population over a matter of choices regarding birth control.   

Clearly Obama doesn't support killing babies and that's what is so distorted and extreme about both RonMexico's view and this National Review distortion.  Obama actually **supported** the federal version of the bill passed by congress, but Illinois stripped the language from the federal bill for political reasons (to deliberately undermine Roe vs. Wade) and Obama voted against **undermining Roe vs. Wade** which is a far cry from **voting to kill babies**.  It's just distortion of Obama's true beliefs and practically everyone knows that but some people simply want to distort Obama's views for to serve a political purpose. The purpose? Well, seeing as how the difference between Obama and McCain's view on abortion are virtually indistinguishable, the only purpose served is that Republican want John McCain in the White House, not for anything to do with abortion, but to keep the oil industry fat and happy.

We just went through eight years of having a President who ran on the same empty words on abortion that John McCain now uses and we have NO FEWER abortion now than when President Bush came into office. Obama at least has a plan on how to prevent abortion without the need for government to legislate control over a woman's body.  

Either I am totally sheltered or uninformed, but I've never heard of VIABLE babies being aborted when they can be delivered instead.  It was my understanding that abortion clinics WON'T perform abortions after a certain number of weeks gestation.  Maybe that's just here in California, I don't know.  As for late-term abortions when the mother's life is at stake--that's ludicrous.  Induced labor and ceserean are just as timely as abortion.  Anyone that would perform a late-term abortion when the mother's life is at stake, when ceserean is just as fast as easy, would be exposing themselves to a huge liability.  Again, ludicrous.

I guess abortion, for some people, is a just big, foggy mystery on par with Atlantis and dragons. 

No, dril, in effect he opposed *THAT* bill, likely because he felt it was a smokescreen for the anti-woman brigade.  He voted against in in Illinois, and did not vote for or against the federal version.  Which *ALSO* was a smokescreen.

But let's face it, a late-term abortion is not going to result in a viable baby.  It.  Just.  Isn't.   And yes, "just as well" does indeed describe the situation.

Either I am totally sheltered or uninformed, but I've never heard of VIABLE babies being aborted when they can be delivered instead. 

They aren't.  It's a smokescreen.  The true intent is to make it just that much harder for women who need abortions to get them.

.

Anyone that would perform a late-term abortion when the mother's life is at stake, when ceserean is just as fast as easy, would be exposing themselves to a huge liability.  Again, ludicrous.

Actually, no.  The c-section is much more risky to the woman, even though the Supreme Court just made the safer procedure unavailable.

Catherine, me either, so I'm as sheltered and uninformed as you. They must be talking about back-alley abortions, not those performed in a licensed clinic - a huge difference and something no legislation can control since it done by someone with a coat hanger who then tosses the baby in the nearest dumpster. It's just another attempt to muddle the difference between legal abortion and back alley murder.

Interesting, Random.  All the women I've talked to that have had cesareans said it was no big deal.  Even ones that have had both cesarean and regular delivery said cesarean was easier.  It's the recovery, I guess, that's longer.  Or maybe cesarean is RISKIER than regular delivery.  You can't say it ain't faster, though.  My first labor was 26 hours!

 Chico: "The only thing this proves is how knee-jerk our politics have become. He knew what the hard core Dems would do with it as soon as he said it. While maybe not the smartest thing to do in a campaign I think he may well have said it just to see the reaction (an obvious exaggeration to elicit a response much like his 100 year war comment). We will see what the Dems do with it but I suspect it will play like his 100 year commentt has. To people that actually think for themselves, it serves to show just how politically blinded and Pavlovian his opponents actually are."
 

So, you think he set "rich" at $5 million as a joke? To whom? The other 99.9% of Americans who aren't? Is this like Bush's "joke" about "his people" ("the 'haves', and the 'have mores'")? And you think his "100 year" comment was done, not because he believes it, but to elicit a reaction? He was either lying to get a reaction, or stupid for actually meaning it. Take your pick. Either you can't trust him, or he does not have a firm grasp of the situation on the ground. In either case, how that would not automatically disqualify him from the office of President is beyond me. Haven't you had enough of eight years of lying? What, you need another four of some bs artist and his corporate lobbyist lackeys screwing this country up even more? To what, spite Democrats? You sure have a "funny" way of showing love for your country, Chico.

Hussein, by voting on these bills, was in fact deciding when life begins.  So that means that he was *LYING* last night with his "above my pay grade" answer.  He seems to lack the balls to take a firm stand on any issue, but it's too late for the Dems to change now.  They're stuck with him.

"we have NO FEWER abortion now than when President Bush came into office."

Do you have any links to back that up or are you just spouting the usual left-wing wacko lying, stinking, no proof providing, false talking points?

Here is a study that says abortions *DECREASED* during the Bush Presidency.

"• In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000."

See what happens when you start getting contraceptions and *GOOD* information into teenagers' hands?  Just wait'll Plan B kicks in.  Which is good, because I believe they're back on the rise again.

Life began about 3 billion years ago. 

Interesting, Random.  All the women I've talked to that have had cesareans said it was no big deal.

I can't attest to having the procedure done on me but I've seen it done to my wife. It is a very big deal. She nearly died. A lot can go wrong in a caesarean. It's not just a matter of the doctor cutting the woman open and a baby popping out.

I believe you, jfrancais.  When I was pregnant with my first child I worked in an office with about 15 women.  Nearly every one shared her pregnancy and delivery stories, not to mention all my cousins, aunts, etc.  Not a single one told me of any problems with c-sections.  I also read the pregnancy bible "What to Expect When You're Expecting," and again, it made c-sections sound positively easy.  I'm not sure if they were all trying to allay a nervous mother's fears or what, but as I have had two regular deliveries, I can't  comment on personal experience.  Here's some snippets from my book, though:

"Today, however, cesareans are nearly as safe as vaginal deliveries for the mother, and in difficult deliveries or where there's fetal distress, they are often the safest delivery mode for the baby.  Even though it is technically considered major surgery, a cesarean carries relatively minor risks--closer to those of a tonsillectomy than of a gallbladder operation, for instance--that can generally be treated easily."

And cesareans ARE performed when there is distress in either the mother, the baby, or both:

"First of all, cesarean delivery has become an extremely quick and safe option [explaining the high rate of cesareansnowadays] and some reasons for cesarean are: :A fetal illness or abnormality that makes labor an vaginal delivery unacceptably risky or traumatic," "MAternal diabetes, in cases where preterm delivery is deemed necessary and it is found that the cervix is not ready for induction of labor," "Other maternal illness (including heart disease and respiratory disorders,)" "Placenta previa, since labor can cause such a placenta to detach prematurely, which could result in hemorrhage," Maternal hypertension or kidney disease, if it appears the mother may be unable to tolerate the stress of labor," "Preeclampsia or eclampsia that doesn't respond to treatment," or "Fetal or maternal distress, due to any cause."

Considering all that, WHY have a late-term abortion?

Abortion is the single most polarizing issue dividing people on both ends of the political spectrum.

Pro Life people become so angered that they demonize Pro Choice advocates and sometimes commit criminal acts like arson and even murder blowing up clinics, shooting doctors etc.

Democrats, of both conservative and liberal leanings are collectively branded evil murderers by Republicans presuming a moral authority over the godless heathens.

This divisive issue will be dominating politics for decades, perhaps even milleniums to come.

Of course a cesarean is a serious procedure.  Anytime you open the abdominal wall it's considered major surgery. 

You're not going to extract that child with a laparoscopy.

I bet it would be considered a monumental deal if it were done on men.

Why have late-term abortion?  Because it's medically necessary and much easier on the woman than the alternative.

C-sections are "nearly as safe as vaginal deliveries"--which can kill or severely injure the mother.

Look, what the anti-abortion types *AREN'T* telling you is *WHY* intact D&E abortions--the latest of the late--are performed.  Generally there are two reasons:  fetal death, and hydrocephalus.  Neither one is going to produce a viable baby.  Both require the fetus to be removed.  The safest way to do that for the woman is intact D&E.  And the Supreme Court, in an almost Catholic display of misogyny, decided that their delicate sensibilities overrule the very real possibility of serious harm to the mother.

There are medical conditions which require removal of half a child's brain in order to save his/her life.  It would be possible to demonize *THAT* medical procedure too, and kill some children who didn't have to die.  Maybe I could even get the fundies to donate enough money so I wouldn't have to work anymore.  I could just tell them lies crafted to stir their emotions, and they'd put me on the gravy train without asking any questions.  Bless their little empty-headed souls.

That's correct RF~ my friend delivered a baby that was according to all the tests, was good to go. One slight problem right before birth they did an ultrasound.She was blind,had six fingers,toes,cleft palate,and no brain covering. My friend gave birth,and in an act of "compassion" it took that baby a week to die of starvation and dehydration. That's how they kill those babies,unless the parents want them to live against doctors advice. What's the worst choice here?Late term abortion or a slow tortuous death?

This is the kind of thing that should be between a family and a doctor.

Sage

As cruel as that is, it's just as cruel to expect a woman to carry a dead baby until she spontaneously aborts. 

I've never understood that.

ronmexico: "Obama refused to answer a question because is "was above his pay grade".  WOw.  What does he think he is running for, neighborhood watch commander???"
 

Gee, you don't think he could possibly be talking about God, do you?

Oh, right, that would mean you actually thought about something.

Nevermind.