SATURDAY NIGHT’S televised candidate forum with John McCain and Barack Obama proved to be both more revealing and useful than any presidential debate in recent memory.
The Rev. Rick Warren set the format for the evening with the expressed purpose of going beyond standard political discourse to reveal both the character and spiritual depth of the candidates. Warren, who admires McCain and Obama and counts both as friends, wanted to move beyond sound bites and bumper-sticker slogans and allow the candidates to discuss at some length the ideas and experiences that lie behind their world views.
The result was a thought-provoking look at two men, each admirable in his own way, who deeply disagree on some fundamental questions of government.
Perhaps the most revealing political question asked the candidates which current Supreme Court justices they would not have appointed. Obama began his list with Clarence Thomas, whose qualifications he questioned. In his turn, McCain promptly reeled off the names of the four most liberal members of the court, indicating that, as president, he would replace retiring justices with conservatives in the mold of Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.
Ask what things in their lives they most regret, both men were forthright. McCain spoke of his role in the failure of his first marriage. Obama talked about experimenting with drugs and alcohol when he was young.
On political questions, Obama was more successful than McCain in following the host’s urging to avoid falling back on stump speeches. As McCain’s hour progressed, he increasingly used Warren’s questions as springboards for vigorous quotes from his campaigning and turned from the host to address his remarks directly to the audience. McCain sought, and often got, a rally-style response from the 2,200 people in Warren’s Saddleback Church.
Obama treated the occasion more as a conversation with Warren and rarely dropped into campaign rhetoric.
The evening was not entirely successful, either for the candidates or for Warren’s stated purpose. An hour can seem like an eternity in front of the television cameras, but it was far too short for the depth of conversation Warren had sought. At least two hours for each candidate would not have been too much time.
But limited as it was, Warren’s forum was a valuable and informative evening, reminding voters that political choice is rarely between good and evil, but between opposing ideas of civic good.
The Saddleback forum went a long way toward stripping away campaign hype and noise and restoring the human dimension to the race for the White House.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by citizen (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought the questions asked of the candidates were excellent. I liked this forum better than the debates. I appreciated the way McCain gave his answers. His beliefs were clear. Obama seemed to struggle with his answers. Almost as if he was saying what the audience wanted to hear. He took so long thinking for an answer.
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ain't perspective amazing? I would think that it is easier to come up with flash rhetoric when all you want to do is appeal to the audience. It would be more difficult, and hence take a bit longer to formulate answers, if you wanted to be frank and candid instead.
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought they both did well. Informed voters are what we choose to be.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't watch the entire interchange, but found Obama's answer concerning the point at which life begins very disappointing. If he believes that the answer to the question is beyod his pay grade then I think Reagan's answer in the 80's would have been more appropriate. If he doesn't know, then I think erring on the side of life is the appropriate answer.
We Evangelicals aren't asking the entire country to agree with our position on life, but we do believe that we constitute a voting bloc that needs to be understood and listened to. In that regard, I think Senator Obama failed a test.
I just read a few snippets from an interview with Rick Warren today after the forum. I think it's instructive. When Warren was asked about Obama's answer to the question about when life begins he responded:
"No. I think he needed to be more specific on that. I happen to disagree with Barack on that. Like I said, he's a friend. But to me, I would not want to die and get before God one day and go, 'Oh, sorry, I didn't take the time to figure out' because if I was wrong then it had severe implications to my leadership if I had the ability to do something about it. He should either say, 'No scientifically, I do not believe it's a human being until X' or whatever it is or to say, 'Yes, I believe it is a human being at X point,' whether it's conception or anything else. But to just say 'I don't know' on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me."
Warren went on to say that while many of us Evangelicals find Senator Obama quite attractive and that we're not a monlith (we believe in supporting social and ecological programs, AIDS relief in Africa, working against poverty, literacy, etc) we have not abandoned our support for the unborn.
I was giving very serious consideration to supporting Senator Obama, but since the forum I've moved into the undecided/leaning McCain category.
Posted by proverbs18_21 (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
With all due respect Pat, I take issue with your statement -"...political choice is rarely between good and evil, but between opposing ideas of civic good."
For those of us who do believe that life begins at conception, our pro-life stance is in direct response to the 'evil' of murdering millions of innocent defenseless babies.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
McCain seemed much more genuine than Obama. Of course, McCain has life experiences, including 5 1/2 years as a POW, that have shaped his character. In Obama's defense, he has no defining, significant life experiences to improve his character.
Posted by eiggohp (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought that this forum was so wonderful. Obama did more oh,um, and stuttering than answering the questions in a forth-right manner.
I thought McCain did a wonderful job of expressing himself and made it so personal by relating the experiences in his life-time that we all needed to know. He certainly has my vote!
Posted by UsayULoveGod (anonymous) on August 18, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What really matters is that we have someone to lead us out of this very bad situation we are in NOW ! I am a DEMOCRAT but I will vote for the one who will lead and not destroy this Nation.
Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on August 19, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rick Warren deserves to be commended for hosting this televised event, and more importantly for setting the tone of the evening with three messages.
1.) “We believe in the separation of church and state, but we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just a world view, and everybody has some kind of world view. It’s important to know what they are.”
2.) “We’ve got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other.”
3.) "We need to restore civility in our civil discourse."
In order for this nation to heal itself, and to regain trust and rapport with the rest of the world, I believe these three points need to be adhered to by, not just our elected officials, but every citizen.
All in all, I think this opportunity for the two leading presidential candidates to speak to the public was successful. While I didn't agree 100% with the stances on the issues from either candidate, at least the political jargon was removed from the context and the candidates were able to explain their viewpoints without defending them.
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)