As I wrote yesterday right after the Saddleback forum, McCain was spectacular. He only really has one riff on his personal faith (the cross in the sand), but it's a damn good one and we have to remember that most people haven't heard the story yet. (He needs to be careful on one point: he keeps adding new details to the story; if he keeps doing that, people will feel like he's embellishing for votes). He started with a stronger hand - he is pro-life and anti-gay marriage - but he played his cards forcefully.
Most important, I've always believed that McCain's real trump card with evangelicals was not his position on abortion but his strength as a foe of "Islamic extremism." He identified that as a central force for evil in the world. Obama didn't.
But let's not get carried away. Religious conservative Gary Bauer said on CBN that Obama destroyed his chances of winning significant numbers of evangelicals with his answers on abortion and the Supreme Court. He further said that the only votes Obama will get are of the "religious left" which "all Democratic candidates get." This completely misunderstands or misstates Obama's political goals. Remember: John Kerry got 22% of the white evangelical vote. Bill Clinton got 32%. Obama's task is to get back to Clinton levels, not to win conservative evangelicals.
Bauer cited a few particular moments. He hated Obama's line that determining when life begins is "above my pay grade." I agree that this was a poorly framed answer. If he was going to make this argument, he should have been more direct and say, "Only God really knows that. But since we have to pick someone to make this choice, I believe the choice should rest not with the legislature or the courts but with the women in consultation with her pastor." He was too clipped and cryptic. And he could have been far more emphatic on his goal of "reducing the number of abortions."
Bauer also claimed that Obama "lied" about supporting a ban on partial birth abortion. Obama said he would sign a partial birth ban that protected the life of his mother. You can say you don't believe Obama will put real muscle behind ending partial birth abortion, but Obama has stated his position clearly at this point. Saying Obama is lying on this is, well, a lie.
He also crticized Obama's naming his least favorite Supreme Court justices as Clarence Thomas and John Roberts. I actually thought this was one of Obama's better moments. By criticizing Thomas for lacking experience, he was showing that he would not shying away from criticizing an African American who didn't meet performance standards. And when describing why he didn't like Roberts, Obama said the Chief Justice supports giving executive branch too much power -- an issue that appeals not only to liberals but libertarian Republicans and independents.
Let's keep in mind Obama's goals going in to the night:
1) Personal Faith -- Showing evangelicals who think he's a secret Muslim or a Black Liberation Theologist that he's actually a serious Christian. He did this brilliantly, speaking comfortably and emphasizing personal salvation as much as social justice. That's crucial. Grade: A+
2) Abortion - His goal was to show that although he's pro-choice, he views it as a moral issue and wants to reduce the number of abortions. He's been cast as a pro-abortion radical who wants late terms abortions and is fine killing babies who accidentally get born during an abortion. The goal is not to win over folks who view abortion as a litmus test, it's to get those who like Obama on many other issues but can't quite pull the trigger because of discomfort on this. They don't need to agree with Obama; they just need to think of him as reasonable, and wanting fewer abortions. I thought he was a bit muddier than he needed to be but not horrible. Grade: B
3) Gay Marriage - The young evangelicals that he's courting are fine with civil unions. All Obama needed to do was say he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, which he did. Grade: A-
4) Temperament - He needed to show them that he's not Rev. Wright. His sense of nuance, reasonableness and temperamental moderation worked well. Over at Progressive Revival, Paul Raushenbush notes that Obama's answer about the perils of doing evil in the name of fighting evil is one that actually may appeal to some Christians. All in all, Obama has been cast as a crazy radical. Instead, he oozed reasonableness. It wasn't as exciting as McCain's sharpness, but Obama's goal with this audience was to comfort and reassure not excite. Grade: A-
Just because McCain was outstanding doesn't mean Obama flopped.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I think it was obvious that McCain has been thoroughly busy holding Town Hall meetings, answering question after question from real American voters -- while Obama has been making emotional speeches and basking in his rock-stardom.
McCain didn't have to think long. I bet it's entirely possible that he has been asked those same questions, just framed somewhat differently, in one of those many Town Hall meetings.
Even when McCain gives a speech, like he did when appearing before the NAACP last month, he allows time for questioning from the voters.
"To the surprise and delight of those in the convention hall, McCain took questions, which ranged from judicial appointments to faith-based initiatives."
So, why did McCain seem sharper than Obama and ready to succinctly answer Pastor Warren's questions? Good, old-fashioned hard work paid off, as it always does.
I thought Obama was rather dull but I was much more put off by McCain's overtly political cheerleading and ended up changing the channel. In retrospect I think I just expected too much. Evangelicals are pretty much Republicans after all and this is an election. I just really wanted to hear more thoughtful answers from McCain instead of buzzwords and talking points.
McCain and Warren have lied to the public about this piece of fiction called a "cone of silence." McCain was in the car listening to Obama's questions. No wonder he was even able to interrupt Warren a few times and answer the questions.
Dishonesty...it's what Christians do for the GOP these days.
Actually "Steve" Obama didnt say he would support a partial birth abortion ban that supported an exception for the life of the mother.
He opposed that bill which is now the law of the USA. Partial Birth Abortion is illegal unless a woman's life is threatened and a doctor needs to partially deliver and then crush the skull of a viable or near viable infant.
What Obama said is that he would support a ban that included a "health" exception, which would nullify the ban because mental distress would be that health exception. Nobody actually needs to partially remove a baby and crush its skull, there is no actual health benefit to this. Ron Fitzsimmons of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers flat out admits that partial birth abortions are almost never done for actual health emergencies, but always for issues like " mental stress" etc..
I would like to know what proof exists that McCain had the benefit of hearing the questions asked by Warren and the responses given by Obama before he was given his opportunity to speak.
Christians ARE NOT dishonest. Those that fear Christ usually are.
In all sincerity, my belief (after hearing both of them) is that one was honest and one was not; and those of you who make comments like the one "Dishonesty...it's what Christians do for the GOP these days"
are starting to get scared...really scared.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.