7:16 p.m.: A few closing thoughts. Rick Warren did a remarkable job. Very well done. Second, Sen. Barack Obama was good. He was personable, answered the questions thoughtfully, and showed humor, intellect and depth. Sen. John McCain was even better. His rich life experience took the forum from mono to stereo, from black-and-white to color. I’m a fence-setter voter, but this forum put me on the McCain side. While Obama may be the guy I’d like to have a drink with, McCain is the guy I’d want to lead me into battle. I’m still keeping an open mind, but for now, McCain’s my man.
7:14 p.m.: What would you say to people who oppose me asking these questions in the church? McCain pandered too much to the religious crowd. Score: 2.4.
7:12 p.m.: Why do you want to be president? question: McCain again (this is getting repetitive) hits it out of the park. “I’ll always be my country first.”
7:10 p.m.: The adoption question: Again, Rick Warren has made U.S. policy by getting commitments from both presidential candidates to agree to setting up an adoption organization for orphans around the world.
7:07 p.m.: I love the way McCain addresses his listeners as “my friends.”
7:05 p.m.: Congratulations to CNN for letting this forum to go into overtime.
6:58 p.m.: I’m loving John McCain right now. Question: What’s worth dying for? “There’s tyranny and tragedy throughout the world, but we can’t right every wrong” … But we need to a beacon of hope throughout the world … The most precious asset is American blood.” Score: 9.6.
6:56 p.m.: If I were Rick Warren’s stylist, I’d recommend that he lose the goatee (so 5 minutes ago) and the Italian tablecloth shirt).
6:52 p.m.: McCain, who provided shorter answers than Obama, gets an additional question. When privacy rights and the right for national security collide, what takes priority? McCain — and I don’t have a horse in this race — does another good job with his answer. If Jack Bauer of “24″ were to vote for president, I know he’d pick McCain (who’s actually had a walk-on role on the show).
6:47 p.m.: McCain is killing it. Question: What’s rich? He first says that anyone is rich who has a family, a job, a house and a good future for their kids. Then he says he wants everyone in America to be rich, keep taxes low and stop so much government spending.
6:45 p.m.: A thought. Should McCain stop the modified comb-over and go with a buzz? I say yes.
6:43 p.m.: Question: Merit pay for teachers. McCain supplies a short and popular answer: Yes! And then repeats “Choice and competition” and throws in “home schooling.” He’s cementing the conservative vote right now. Score: 8.8.
6:40 p.m.: Question: Federal dollars for faith-based initiatives. McCain, perhaps playing to the audience (and base), glosses over some of the problems inherent in faith-based initiatives. Score: 3.4.
6:38 p.m.: Question: Which Supreme Court justice would you have NOT nominated? McCain quickly ticks off several liberal judges and says there should be no legislating from the bench — and gives a good word for Roberts and Scalia. Score: 8.5.
6:34 p.m.: The question of evil. “We must totally defeat it.” McCain hits another out of the park. Promises to track down Osama bin Laden “to the gates of hell” and ties the defeat of radical Islamism to the war in Iraq. Score: 9.6.
6:32 p.m.: Stem-cell question. McCain answers this with intellectual honesty. Score: 9.2.
6:30 p.m.: The definition of marriage. McCain again gives the base what it wants. Warren goes off-script to ask about an upcoming California initiative. Score: 5.0.
6:28 p.m.: Abortion question: when does a baby have rights? Answer: At conception. Wild applause ensues. I can’t believe McCain believes that the instant a sperm and egg unites it has total human rights. But the base LOVES it! Score: 4.3.
6:26 p.m.: But McCain’s emotional recounting of his Christmas encounter with his Christian Vietnamese God brought tears to my eyes — and his.
6:25 p.m.: New drinking game. Have a shot each time McCain mentions his POW experience.
6:24 p.m.: What does being a follower of Christ mean to you? McCain: It means I’m saved and forgiven. From a Christian standpoint, that’s the perfect answer. Score: 9.8.
6:22 p.m.: Why didn’t these candidates buy commercial time of CNN and run some inspirational commercials?
6:21 p.m.: These are two very appealing presidential candidates in a setting like this.
6:19 p.m.: “Most gutting-wrenching decision you had to make” question. Another home run by McCain, who said he refused a chance to be released from his POW cell and basically sentenced himself to another three years in prison. It’s clear that a military man and long-time U.S. senator has more life experience than the much younger Obama.
6:16 p.m.: On the flip-flop question. McCain talks about off-shore oil drilling — this issue polls well, and strikes me as a political answer. He had more profound changes of mind during his career, but instead with a hot-button issue. Score: 2.2.
6:12 p.m.: Softball question from Warren. Get me an instance where you’ve gone against your party… McCain hits it out of the party, touching on torture and going against President Reagan’s plans to send troops to Lebanon. Score: 9.6.
6:10 p.m.: Biggest moral failing, personally and America’s. McCain’s personal failure: My first marriage. Heartfelt. But then he, by his own admission, panders and recites the first line from Warren’s book (the very same line Obama quoted). Political trick. Score: 5.0.
6:07 p.m.: Three wisest men questions (btw, what’s with Christians and their fascinated with three wise men?). McCain’s answer: Two military men, including Gen. David Patraeus, and a female entrepreneur (Meg Whitman of E-Bay). Score: 9.5 (two bonus points for not mentioning his wife or another family member).
6:05 p.m.: Another proposed drinking game: Have a shot each time a person of color is spotted in the audience of Saddleback Church.
6:04 p.m.: I think it’s a disadvantage for McCain to go second. Audience may be fatigued when hearing similar answers. We’ll see.
6:01 p.m.: Sen. John McCain introduced. I wonder if he ditched his tie at the last minute after looking at Warren and Obama. Maybe this will be a Clark Gable moment (he didn’t wear an undershirt in a movie and led to the near-extinction of undershirts). I think I speak for all guys who would cheer the the near-extinction of the tie.
5:59 p.m.: Great last question: What would you tell the American public is you knew there would be no repercussions? Obama’s answer about energy independence was great, too. Score: 9.5.
5:58 p.m.: Self-serving question from Warren, but I loved it: What do you say to people who oppose me asking you these questions? One thing Obama doesn’t lack is self-confidence. I keep wondering if he’s the Democratic Ronald Reagan, someone who can make people feel better about America again. I only wonder this when I see him in a setting like this. Score: 9.0.
5:55 p.m.: Terrible question from Warren: In one minute, why do you want to be president? But Obama’s answer saved it. Score: 8.8.
5:52 p.m.: Human trafficking question. Obama’s controversial answer: “This has to be a top priority.” I don’t like the question. It’s like saying, “Murder is a problem in the world. What would you do about it?” Score: 5.0.
5:52 p.m.: The usually tasteful graphic artists at Saddleback could have done better with the set and backdrop. It looks a little cheesy.
5:50 p.m.: “Pastor Rick” is making U.S. policy by asking for a commitment from Obama to set up a system to get the world’s orphans adopted. Savvy. Obama’s answer was good. Score: 8.5.
5:47 p.m.: Obama will regret his answer to the “when do you intervene in a genocide” by saying we should get UN approval.
5:45 p.m.: What’s worth dying for? HE ASKED MY QUESTION (kind of). But Obama whiffed on the answer by mouthing some very generic stuff. Score: 2.1.
5:42 p.m.: Is it too early to admit I was wrong? This forum is compelling.
5:41 p.m.: Dang, no school voucher or home schooling question. Warren: Define rich. Obama: If you sell 25 million books … Nice sense of humor. Big points. Score: 9.2.
5:40 p.m.: Pay for teachers question. Prediction: School vouchers or home schooling questions will be next.
5:38 p.m.: Obama did a nice job with explaining the nuances involved in federal dollars funding faith-based initiatives. Score: 8.5.
5:36 p.m.: A presidential candidate calling his interviewer “Pastor Rick” is really annoying. How about just “Rick”?
5:34 p.m.: Obama comes across as a really likable person in a one-on-one setting.
5:31 p.m.: Which Supreme Court justice would you have not nominated? A home run question and a bombshell answer with Clarence Thomas. Score: 9.5.
5:29 p.m.: I wish Obama or any candidate would just tell religious people who oppose stem-cell research that they are nuts, stand in the way of scientific progress and doesn’t cause any harm to human life. Obama failed with his wishy-washy answer. Score: 3.5.
5:26 p.m.: Having an evangelical leader ask questions should makes for different, straight-forward questions — wedge issues that separate conservative Christians with others. Warren’s latest: How do you define marriage? Again, Obama looks uncomfortable but he answered well. Score: 8.9.
5:24 p.m.: The abortion question by Warren is his best so far by a mile: At what point does a fetus (I think he used the word “baby”) have human rights? Obama really struggled with his answer — at one point, trying to avoid it by saying “It’s above my pay grade” to supply an answer. This will haunt him. Score: 2.3.
5:22 p.m.: Wow. A straightforward religious question: this is great, but Obama’s answering that being a Christian means that his sins will be “hopefully washed away” is off base. If Christianity is real and Obama is a Christian, his sins will be washed away.
5:22 p.m.: 200,000 questions submitted by Warren’s followers. The man generates big numbers — and doesn’t mind advertising it.
5:20 p.m.: This is more interesting than I thought it would be, but it’s frustrating the Rick Warren isn’t going to ask pointed follow-up questions.
5:18 p.m.: Just been informed by someone smarter than me that Warren hasn’t wore Hawaiian shirts for a while now. Note: I need to get to church more often!
5:16 p.m.: How many times will Obama bring up the fact that he opposed the war from the start? This could be a good drinking game. “Toughest decision” score: 3.2.
5:14 p.m.: “Example of a flip-flop” score: 8.1. Nice job to admit he’d been wrong about work-to-welfare reform.
5:12 p.m.: Not going to war in Iraq was actually a popular view within Obama’s district.
5:10 p.m.: Obama playing well to the crowd. Mentions “it’s not about me” and then cites a piece of Scripture. His revelation about his biggest moral failings — too much alcohol and drugs in his youth — was hardly revealing. Score: 7.4.
5:08 p.m.: “It’s not about me” is the first line from Warren’s best-selling “Purpose Driven Life” book.
5:06 p.m.: Score for Obama’s first question (out of 10): 5.6 — too long, too cliched.
5:04 p.m.: Is it me or is Barack Obama’s hair turning gray overnight?
5:03 p.m.: Rick starts out his first question with Scripture (nod to his audience, I’m guessing). The three wisest people in your life? Nice first question.
5:01 p.m.: What, no Hawaiian shirt? At least Rick didn’t put on a tie.
4:57 p.m.: Prediction: Pastor Rick Warren, who is moderating the forum, will do better with non-policy questions that give an insight into the candidates’ character — such as how do you handle the burden of sending soldiers into battle knowing that some of them will be killed?
4:36 p.m.: It’s late notice, but I decided to blog live the presidential forum today at 5 p.m. (PST) at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest. If you happen to be reading this in real time, just refresh this post frequently. If you’re getting to this afterward, you may want to read from the bottom.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Ted Olsen // Aug 17, 2008 at 8:13 am
Warren hasn’t been doing the aloha shirt thing for quite some time, actually.
2 Derek Simpson // Aug 17, 2008 at 9:49 am
It’s a minor thing, but I think he actually mentioned Robers and Alito by name; not Scalia.
Great blog btw.
3 mark // Aug 17, 2008 at 10:55 am
“Which Supreme Court justice would you have not nominated? A home run question and a bombshell answer with Clarence Thomas. Score: 9.5.”
didnt obama give as his reason a lack of necessary experience on the part of thomas at the time of his nomination?
that’s rich coming from a presidential candidate with a resume shorter than a matchbook and without a single accomplishment of note to his credit. don’t think that’ll be lost on people.
score it a 2.0
4 Scott // Aug 17, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I will admit my conservative bias, but I can not imagine anyone who is undecided about their presidential preference who would not see a clear difference in maturity, genuineness, wisdom and political savvy, with the advantage going to Sen McCain of course. The single most glaring difference in this debate involved the question about how to confront evil. Sen.
Obama never made reference to the civilized world’s war on Islamic radicalism, and Sen McCain hit this question out of the park. John McCain will be our next president.
5 Doubting Foo // Aug 18, 2008 at 1:38 am
Hey, remember that part of the constitution that says there shall be no religious test to be president? Whatever happened to that? I’m sick of these “compassion forums.” I’m sick of all this pandering to the religious BS. God isn’t going to make this country better, people are. How about a forum with the two of them being interviewed by the author of the REASON Driven Life? How about questions about science and education without being framed for their religious implications?
6 Aubrey // Aug 18, 2008 at 1:47 am
William, You’re an articulate, well-educated author. For goodness sake read up on stem cell research.
Please inform yourself before you engage in statements like: “I wish Obama or any candidate would just tell religious people who oppose stem-cell research that they are nuts, stand in the way of scientific progress and doesn’t cause any harm to human life…”
It leaves not doubt as to the depth of your your ignorance. It’s like saying “the earth is flat” to anyone who is informed on the issue. Be aware that there is absolutely no reason for using embryonic stem cells. None. This isn’t religion. This is science. Currently we can generate stem cell lines w-i-t-h-o-u-t embryonic stem cells. This has been true for years.
Please go to the NIHS site http://www.nih.gov and read up on it. Or simply state that you are ignorant of the science behind the issue and hence don’t have an opinion.
Here’s a website that breaks out the science of stem cell research in very clear terms http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ And for those who are interested here’s a website that provides a moral perspective on biotechnology: http://www.marymeetsdolly.com/ Please just take a few moments….
7 Fritz // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:46 am
[1]The format was first rate and allowed side-by-side comparison of the cnadidates. Tom Brokaw should adopt this formula. [2] Obama put it to Warren by mentionning “humility” in dealing with religious issues. Humility- or the obverse- arrogance- is a problem for Evangelical Christians like Warren. [3] Warren effectively placed religion (his) in the center of politics and government, something the Founders rejected. This is not a good sign for religious liberty-or liberty of any kind, in America.
8 Connie // Aug 19, 2008 at 12:13 pm
McCain ,as President, wants to track down Bin Laden and never give up til he gets him. What about the Christian charge that says to “love your enemies and pray for them who hate you.” McCain sound very war- hungry and and revengeful here. McCain’s statement show me he doesn’t really understand what it means to be a Christian.
9 Iron Pol // Aug 19, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Scott, I’m also a conservative, but you are ignoring half the equation if you say that only McCain has anything to offer. Obama offers charisma, the perception of hope (regardless of whether real or imagined), and the offer of change (again, whether real or imagined). He didn’t get where he is by luck.
Aubrey, I don’t know Bill’s stance on stem cells. But all he did was express a wish that pro-stem cell people would stop trying to convince those who oppose it that it is somehow morally acceptable. They should simply take a stance and stand behind it.
The statement that we generate stem cell lines without embryonic stem cells is simply false. Embryonic stem cells are produced from currently existing lines, many of which were contaminated due to poor controls. There is a limited number of these lines.
There are, however, other options. Umbilical cord blood is a great source of stem cells (and also the one source that has produced many proven cures). We can get stem cells from individuals, process them, and reintroduce them to the individual. Again, a proven technique.
However, none of these are embryonic stem cells. Those are only available from developing embryos, and the “best” source is days old embryos. Those who oppose this process take a strong stance and say that the potential benefits are insufficient to warrant the destruction of a fetus. I think Bill is right that those who support such research should just take a darn stance. They usually try to waffle around it so they can keep the support of conservatives and the Christian right.
10 Aubrey // Aug 25, 2008 at 4:58 am
Iron Pol,
Thank you for your response. I thought that I had misread what William had written and upon review I think I got it right. However, please be aware that my understanding of William’s position on stem cells is based exclusively on what he blogged during the Saddleback forum. If I am ignorant of other positions he has put forth, please accept my apology. However, I think you need to review what William blogged. He is clearly suggesting that “politicians tell religious people who oppose stem cell research that they are nuts.” (quotes around my paraphrase) I think my assertion follows directly from William’s comments.
On to your further assertions regarding stem cells.
You write: “The statement that we generate stem cell lines without embryonic stem cells is simply false.”
No, actually it is true. This is a common falsehood that is promoted by the AP, the NYT and other agenda news sources. Please, please, please read the links that I gave you above. Here is yet another link. This one is to Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=no-more-cloning-around
Also you can examine the primary research journals “Cell” and “Nature” to see this information.
You wrote: ” Embryonic stem cells are produced from currently existing lines, many of which were contaminated due to poor controls. There is a limited number of these lines.”
This is only partially true. There are only handful of existing lines that were created with (and here’s the clincher) — d i r e c t g o v e r n m e n t f u n d i n g. However, there are truly thousands of lines that have been created with private funding. (And many of these private cell lines have even been patented and readily available are for sale.) The myth you quote also is mis-information that has been promoted by the NYT, the AP, the LA times and other agenda driven media. Please examine the links that I have provided above. Also you can examine the primary research journals “Cell” and “Nature” to see this information. And please give me substantive links from primary science journals that support your assertions.
Iron Pol, you write “There are, however, other options. Umbilical cord blood is a great source of stem cells (and also the one source that has produced many proven cures). We can get stem cells from individuals, process them, and reintroduce them to the individual. Again, a proven technique.”
You are correct! These are all examples of what are called ‘adult stem cells.’ (Yes, even those from cord blood are called adult stem cells. It has to do with the cells capability in their native state. And there are a wealth of cures that derive from these adult stem cells. And there are none that are derived from embryonic stem cells. Almost all Christians are for this type of stem cell research and use.
Iron Pol, you write: “However, none of these are embryonic stem cells. Those are only available from developing embryos, and the “best” source is days old embryos.” Those who oppose this process take a strong stance and say that the potential benefits are insufficient to warrant the destruction of a fetus. I think Bill is right that those who support such research should just take a darn stance. They usually try to waffle around it so they can keep the support of conservatives and the Christian right.”
You are mostly correct about the embryonic stem cells. However, the attractiveness of embyronic stem cells is principally derived from their being “pluripotent” cells. Which among other things is the cell’s ability to divide and produce other cells which in turn divide and produce other cells continously. “Pluripotent” cells have a sort of immortality which is what make them attractive to scientists. Recently ( as in two years ago) it was shown and verified that adult stem cells could be tricked to behave just like embryonic stem cells. Hence, there is no longer a need for embryonic stem cells. With induced pluripotent stem cells you have the benefit of a stem cell line that matches a patient’s own DNA — eliminating many if not all of the issues around organ rejection, and it reproduces indefinitely.
Please check out my links above.
11 mono // Sep 1, 2008 at 9:52 am
[…] experience took the forum from mono to stereo, from black-and-white to color. While Obama may be thttp://williamlobdell.com/archives/199Read “1 Amazon Video Games Top Sellers: MGS4″ at Metal Gear Solid 4 Forum About time… […]
Leave a Comment