Sometimes the truth hurts, folks.

[DeepModem Mom]

And for me, watching the Faith Forum last night, it hurt real bad.

I'm not going to kill the messenger: I agree with Chuck Todd in this piece: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/16/1270330.aspx

I realize again that what appeals to us on our side (and to voters in Democratic Primaries) -- reason, empathy, selflessness, a view to the long term and the future -- does not resonate, I'm afraid, with many, and possibly most, voters. I think there is a generational change coming that will change that, but we are only on the cusp of it.

We have a candidate who could well be, derision aside, The One who could lead us, in a new way, to a different and better place as a nation. Bush has left us damaged, and possibly on a path to the destruction of America as we have known it. We do need a Saviour, and it clearly is not John McCain. He made it plain last night that his intention is to lead us farther down that desructive path.

McCain pushed every button many, if not most, voters want to hear. He will not raise taxes -- even though we are a bankrupt country. He blames our deep debt on Congress's funding silly projects, not on the war draining the lifeblood from our national veins. He waves the flag, and rattles armaments, and assures us we are a great country. We are a great country, but he ignores that we are now a declining country, in deep trouble.

And if we love our country, we must sacrifice to save it. Obama, of course, made that point, about sacrifice, at the end of his hour. Do people want to hear it? Probably not. Better, in terms of the electorate, to mindlessly wave the flag of a nation in crisis.

If there was a failure last night, it was not Obama's. It is ours. It's our thoughtfulness, our ability to see things (as they are) in gray and not always in black and white, our "bleeding hearts."

Obama and his campaign think we can win this election by getting a new electorate to the polls. My prayer after last night's Faith Forum is that they can. I'm convinced that only "we" can save us. It won't be the other side.

[Skwmom]

1. Chuckie Cheese is a corporate hack. I wouldn't read anything that idiot wrote.

[Thrill]

2. All McCain did was spew Republican Talking Points

He won't get away with it unchallenged in debates

[depakid]

29. Newflash: those talking points have won election after election

particularly when the candidate (and the party) espousing them isn't exposed repeatedly in no uncertain terms for who they are and what they actually stand for....

[stray cat]

3. I think the audience was not representative of America - 1000/person attendance?

[Coexist]

4. after hearing McCain's answers, I am even more motivated to register more Democrats.

[Thrill]

5. McCain sounded like an extreme Right Winger. I think his answers

should shore up and motivate the Dem base even more. And should be a turnoff for Independents

[gblady]

17. it will be very interesting....

to see if McLame flip flops on what he said last night in the coming days.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. That's the answer, FLDem5 -- IMO, maybe the only one. nt

[CreekDog]

7. 20 years ago this beat Dukakis by only 6 points

i don't think it's much of a strategy now.

people continually say in polls that tax cuts are not as important as funding programs they care about and that's a recent development.

the demographics of the electorate have changed considerably.

not to mention all that jingoistic stuff has driven the majority of every ethnically identifiable ethnic group into the Democratic Party, many times by large margins. is it any wonder that Asian Americans who used to lean Republican as a group have voted for Democrats in recent elections. the vote among Hispanics for Democrats has increased strongly and African Americans collectively understood what Reagan's ascendancy meant with respect to them and the Republican party and have been voting accordingly ever since (yes they voted for Dems before that, but not with the margins of the past 25 years).

and what Chuck Todd said is kind of circular reasoning and that is: it's better to be repetitive than to be authentic (although the same pundits lauded McCain when they thought he was authentic :eyes: ).

so i just reiterate that my use for cable news and pundits has sunk to a new low, not yet thought possible. the last thing i need to do is waste time listening to fools explain to me why i will like or not like what a candidate says --especially when they haven't seemed to be right in two decades.

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. It was over 7 points, but it was a landslide in the Electoral College

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1988&off=0

[highplainsdem]

8. I agree, DeepModem Mom. I'd posted that Chuck Todd piece last night because it was useful advice,

and not a hit piece.

It's advice Obama can learn from, and should learn from, before the debates.

I don't want him to stop giving thoughtful answers. I don't want him to speak ONLY in sound bites.

But there's an old rule that applies equally well to debates and to effective writing:

Tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them.

The opening and closing of an argument, with that formula, are the sound bites. Though that rule was old long before people were talking about sound bites.

You can be as thoughtful and persuasive as you want in between, given any time limits (including limits imposed by your audience's attention span).

But you need to start and end with forceful, concise statements.

And this is something Obama can learn, and something he has plenty of time to practice, before the debates.


By the way, as I've said elsewhere here, I think Obama probably won over some young evangelical voters last night. He's making inroads with that voting bloc anyway -- they're much less likely than older evangelicals to refuse to listen to a Democrat -- and I'd guess they wanted to hear Obama talk at length about his faith, and they would have liked what they heard.

[DeepModem Mom]

9. I agree.

Obama is such a great orator -- it's not surprising that he's not as gifted in "debates." He improved as the Primaries progressed, and will again, I expect.

One of the campaign correspondents indicated last night before airtime that Obama didn't prepare for the Forum because, one of his staff said, he had talked about the issues involved so many times. But this was a different venue, with many more viewers, and maybe a little prep for it specifically wouldn't have been a bad idea.

[Bluerthanblue]

13. the difference (IMO) is that Obama really attempts to answer

the question, and not simply use any opportunity to spout "buzz words" which play on the worst parts of society.

"We are the BEST"- "I'll follow him to the gates of hell"- "I want you to hold onto your hard earned money"- (how hard has mccain ever worked for his salary???- how much $ does a policeman earn compared with him? or a daycare worker? or a teacher? or waitress?- ) "We have to be vigilant" (be afraid, everyone is out to get us)

Mccain is disingenuous- Obama makes a much greater effort to express his genuine thoughts on an issue. When Mccain has been asked questions that don't leave themselves open to a "buzz word" answer, for example about his approval of govt. funded Viagra vs. no govt. funded birth control, he doesn't lose his 'fluency'- he loses his focus entirely.

I don't think people who are going to live on the kind of "buzz-words" Mccain feeds people, would consume Obama flavored "buzz-words" even if he were to offer them up. People who are willing to listen and THINK before judgment, don't eat canned answers. People who take a few words that appeal to their base instincts want to be stroked, not stimulated to stop and think, or face what sometimes isn't comfortable or flattering.

:hi:

[DeepModem Mom]

14. I think you're right on. If only more people really thought things through...

more seriously, and informed themselves more about the real nature of our problems -- and that there aren't easy soundbite answers to them.

You have to have empathy for someone like Obama in this arena, trying his best to give honest, thoughtful answers to complex problems -- especially having risen to that stage from very difficult circumstances. Tears literally came to my eyes a few times last night, as I thought about that. I had such pride for him, and for us having selected him.

I really hope voters make a wise decision in November, and give him a chance to lead.

[JackORoses]

19. but obama can only win if Hillary is VP, right???

[highplainsdem]

31. Doing your usual trolling for flames, I see. How old are you, twelve?

[JackORoses]

35. I have accepted reality, have you?

[JoFerret]

32. Your obsession

suggests you are a GOP mole.

[JackORoses]

37. your need to cast false accussation reveals the weakness of your position.

I am a Democrat. I am doing everything I can to elect Obama. I hope you are also, but I'm not holding my breath.

[JoFerret]

39. My position

is that we work hard to elect Barack Obama in November.

[JackORoses]

46. Then we are both Democrats.

Glad that's settled.

[JoFerret]

48. Welcome

I am glad you are with us.

[dkf]

10. Um, Obama had to be extra thoughtful because a Dems soundbite answer is offensive

to the evangelical crowd.

I mean if you want him to go into a crowd and leave everyone scared of "liberalness" then that is a good prescription.

[CitizenLeft]

11. I read the comments on the blog...

...and very few believed McCain benifitted or even answered the questions. There were even some evangelicals who said he was rehearsed and were not impressed. One Republican said she was voting for Obama. Interesting.

[NC_Nurse]

12. Depressing, but true.

Most Americans don't like hard realities, they like patriotic bullshit. That's how
the Idiot won reelection. It is too bad that the generational shift is not at the critical mass moment yet.

I only hope that Obama can somehow get more young and currently disenfranchised voters mobilized.
Otherwise, the usual dipshits will again decide the election. Sigh.

[jenmito]

15. Candy Crowley was in the audience and reported that it seemed like a pro-Obama crowd when he was

speaking, and they embraced him warmly, which seemed to surprise her. But then, McCain took the stage, and they really liked him, too. (I was surprised to hear this description coming from Crowley.)

[BlooInBloo]

16. While it's sexy to be the counter-voice, that doesn't make it true. And it's not...

People don't like republicans, contrary to what you and the rest of the contrary-for-the-sake-of-coolness people say.

[DeepModem Mom]

23. Thanks for the post, BlooInBloo. "People" don't like Republicans this year --

I just hope enough voters don't like them.

And, I'll add that Mom's having a little chuckle at being characterized as either sexy or cool!

Best to you --

DMM

[BlooInBloo]

25. hah! Bottom line: We saw Obama versus rich, white Christians.

[BlooInBloo]

24. self-delete - wrong branch.

[thewiseguy]

18. Fuck Chuck Todd. Never liked him.

[Spazito]

20. The truth can sometimes hurt....

but Todd isn't telling the truth, he simply gives his perspective from his narrow point of view.

Opinion is not truth it is merely opinion.

[grantcart]

21. Todd also said this

The quesitons were made to order of McCain in the early going and that allowed him to get comfortable quickly. This was always going to be a tough venue for any Democrat, including one who is as comfortable talking about his faith as Obama is.



The other point that people are not factoring in was the fact that there were no follow up questions. In a debate format McCain would have opened himself up to a thrashing?

Human life begins at conception? Then are you against abortion in the case of incest and rape?


I think that it will give McCain a false sense of security and actually make it worse for him in the debates.


On edit:

the comments on Todd's column are pretty revealing and almost universally pro Obama - including some people describing themselves as independents.

[JackORoses]

22. You want Obama to make the same mistake that Democrats have been making for years?

Us vs. Them?

Obama has opened a Door that was closed before.
Some people will come through that door.
This will spell doom for McCain in many states.

He cannot bar the door by playing to the extreme which is what he did last night.
In fact, in doing that he is pushing moderate Christians through the door by himself.

Has Obama's strategy failed us yet?
No.

He has accomplished more than almost anyone thought possible.
He will not let us down now.

[JoFerret]

33. Is this

more molespeak?

[Major Hogwash]

26. Chuck's right. And he is one of the best analysts on tv.

The problem is, Obama won't fight fire with fire.

He needs an ad that will tell the truth about how bad things are right now in America, instead of telling us that we are full of hope.

You can pump sunshine up anyone's ass, but what Obama needs to do - right now - is to level with the people he is reaching out to and tell them just how fucked we already are - that we can't afford 4 more years of Bush's policies, and that is what McCain is, 4 more years of the same old shit!!!!

If Obama wants to be a preacher, let him resign from the Senate and get a church.
I'm pretty fed up with the hope message as it is being played out now.

[jillan]

30. I agree. Chuck Todd is one analyst that doesn't seem to play games.

He is straight forward, even if it's not what people want to hear.

Obama needs to start winning.

[Born_A_Truman]

27. I haven't read Todd's piece yet,

but I will right after this post.

What I got from last night's Forum was that McCain is used to framing his issues in sound bites for the media and that many voters don't have the attention span required for thoughtful answers (Obama). Yet at the same time they say they don't know what he stands for and he needs to explain his issues.

I told my husband as the show was ending to watch as the M$M told us how great McCain did and they would find ways to bash Obama. CNN had some values guy on there that said Obama just danced around the questions. Huh?

I forget who said it but one of them said McCain did well because the expectation of him was so low going in. Does this remind you of anyone?

[KittyWampus]

28. The issue is how Democrats MARKET AND SELL THEIR POSITION. It's almost as if Democrats are autistic

Or tend to loathe the way humans communicate and respond.

Politics is about communicating and influencing people through the use of SYMBOLS and appealing to our emotive side.

Democrats (a LOT of DU'ers) think getting people to vote for you is primarily about making an intellectual argument.

Humans are designed to recognize symbols and to respond via their emotive centers.

There symbols that work on both emotive and intellectual levels.

There are ways to counteract the use of symbols that prey on our fears.

Democrats seem to understand basic psychology and marketing.

[roseBudd]

34. We don't have bumpersticker slogans but we can go forth and do the work of the press with thoughtful

factual comments on MSM forums. We can reach the independent voters who are lurkers by conducting ourselves as ladies and gentlemen with calm reasoned facts.

[earth mom]

36. The One? Saviour? WTF? Are you even listening to yourself?! Religion does NOT belong in politics!

Your post PROVES beyond a doubt that Obama is speaking in religious code words to his "faithful" flock! :puke:

[DeepModem Mom]

40. I was actually -- and probably not being clear enough -- turning that language back at...

those who deride Obama as the self-appointed One. I meant absolutely no religious connotation. What I meant -- and this is probably an idea in my own mind alone -- is that since before we became a nation we've had leaders somehow come along who have been what was needed at crucial times: various essential Founding Fathers, Lincoln, FDR, etc. I think Obama could be one of these figures because he is gifted in many ways, and this is a historic opportunity.

That was what I was thinking. Sorry if I didn't communicate it well.

ON EDIT: My use of the words "my prayer" at the end was also a play on words re. the Faith Forum, and not a serious religious note.

[ProSense]

38. I don't agree. Todd is taking this at face value, but

Obama gained an edge

The Rick Warren Forum

I just saw CBN's David Brody proclaim McCain the winner of tonight's joint appearance at Saddleback Church, saying (essentially) that McCain hit it out of the park. I didn't think McCain did as well as Brody did--a lot of his answers sounded pretty stilted and canned, like obviously recycled stump shtick. But, even if you did think McCain was objectively better than Obama, that's the wrong way to think about winners and losers in a forum like this. You've got to grade on the curve.

The audience, after all, was primarily evangelical Christians--a group among whom McCain leads by better than 2 to 1, according to recent polls. That means that if McCain did any worse than twice as well as Obama, it counts as a win for Obama. And, from where I sit, McCain didn't come close to doing twice as well. My sense is that Obama struck a lot of previously skeptical evangelicals as a reasonable and God-fearing man (a real achievement given that so many of the questions touched on issues that favor Republicans among these voters--abortion, judges, stem cell research, etc.). That's a big improvement in light of where Obama started.

Advantage Obama.

McCain went strong after the fundie vote and in turn boxed himself into a corner (in more ways than one).

The evangelicals liked McCain's stance, but even they acknowledge the corner he's in:

However, Bishop Jackson noted that if McCain chooses a pro-choice vice president, evangelicals may support Obama. “I think the distinction that we heard tonight was clear, was decisive, was effective. That would be muddied if he mixes the ticket in some way and gets somebody who could become the President – in the event that something terrible would happen to McCain – who would go contrary to the clarity, the focus, and the energy with which McCain came forth tonight.”

Tom Ridge: Pro choice for pro-life ticket?

Posted August 17, 2008 11:40 AM

by Mark Silva

John McCain promises a "pro-life'' presidency - he said so at the Saddleback Church in California last night.

So there's no way McCain can pick a "pro-choice'' running mate, such as former Pennsylvania Gov. Tim Ridge. Right?

Maybe.

"My friend of 25 years is passionately pro-life,'' Ridge said on FOX News Sunday this morning. "He is also passionately a believer that the Republican Party must have a big tent.

" And I think, frankly, what he was just saying to the rest of the world is that we need to accept both points of view,'' Ridge told FOX's Chris Wallace today.

"He's not judgmental about me or my belief,'' said Ridge, who also served as the first Homeland Security secretary under President Bush and, like McCain, is a decorated war veteran - and popular in a state where Democrat Barack Obama apparently holds a narrow advantage over McCain. "He just disagrees with me. And there's no doubt in my mind, no doubt whatsoever, that there would be -- he would have a strong pro-life administration. No question about it."

Now, picking a running mate for such political considerations as Pennsylvania's electoral votes would be - as Republican strategist Karl Rove has suggested of Obama tapping someone such as Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, former mayor of the 103rd largest city (Richmond) - well, political.

So the pick will be made on principle, right?

Based on the fundie position, it can't be Lieberman either. If McCain picks a pro-life VP how many people will be turned off by that?

[DeepModem Mom]

41. Thanks for your post, ProSense.

I was thinking earlier about a possible TV ad with quotes from McCain past-and-present juxtaposed on the screen. Talk about a flipflopper! Someone posted today about his position in 2000 that a daughter's decision to have an abortion would be between her and her family and her doctor. Juxtapose that with what he said last night. Someone also posted that he voted for the Supreme Court Justices he now says he wouldn't appoint.

He has changed on all these hot-button issues, and, as you say, boxed himself in. If we could show some Independents how Right-wing he now is, and even show Right-wingers how insincere he must be, having changed his positions for this election -- AND brand him as a bigtime flipflopper -- I think that would be worth doing.

[PurityOfEssence]

42. Obama is in a dangerous position of being a compensation candidate, which puts him on the defensive

While McCain forges on in his merry way making simplistic pronouncements on this and that, Obama is in an interminable mode of assuaging fears.

He has to give an ever-broader blank check to Israel to such a degree that it slams the door on the Palestinian question, and he'll go further if necessary.

To a great degree, his candidacy can be characterized by the moment when Senator Clinton strong-armed him into denouncing, repudiating and whatever else was asked regarding Louis Farrakhan. Presumably, if asked to excoriate and demonize him, he would have done so willingly right on the spot. He's anything you want him to be, but more than that, he's NOT WHAT YOU THINK HE IS and he'll go to any length to point that out. Okay, so he isn't this, and he isn't that, but what IS he? For the simple, it's easy to see what McCain is: he's the maverick. What is Obama?

This is dangerous: people like loyalty and forthrightness.

Obama got caught in South Carolina when he was trying to deftly play the race and religion card to cleave off the black gospel vote wholesale: the inherent homophobia of this culture had unintended consequences, and the tiny little sop of a gay preacher was faint consolation, with the telegraphed message of him also being white as an example to the crowd that gays were "other". He couldn't back down because he was courting a flawed constituency, and his instincts were to out-Hillary Hillary by being on both sides of the issue.

The same with the war. Now he wants to go into Afghanistan in an even bigger way, presumably to disprove that Democrats are weaklings and to tamp down suspicions of him going easy on Muslims. This is compensation pure and simple: he's letting them dictate the terms of the debate just as Kerry did with his oh-so-macho "reporting for duty".

Drilling? Sure. Death penalty? Not only is he not against it, he's for expanding it. Abortion? Somehow he thinks that restricting it further will help him with those for whom the issue is a slamming door. It just makes him look weak.

If this was a tennis game, Obama would be making sure he always returned the shot, wheras McCain is trying to drill the ball right down Obama's throat.

Sadly, this plays well into what people want from a leader: a forthright dominator.

More than anything, he has to stop caring that somebody might not like him. Much as he wants to be a uniter, some people can't be won over, and a little analysis of Bill Clinton's last few years in office will show a cruel fact: try as you may to accomodate the trogs, they STILL hate you and will stop at nothing to destroy you.

He can't keep letting others drive the debate; we're casting a leading man here, not a character actor, a supporting legislator or some kind of one-man damned Greek Chorus.

[DeepModem Mom]

44. Very perceptive, PurityOfEssence. Obama's having to fight so hard...

to prove what he is not, that it's difficult to frame what he IS in people's minds. IMO, this is really unfair and unfortunate for this gifted, amazing guy. But I think you've hit on something.

[OmahaBlueDog]

43. Above his pay grade

<<McCain pushed every button many, if not most, voters want to hear. He will not raise taxes -- even though we are a bankrupt country. He blames our deep debt on Congress's funding silly projects, not on the war draining the lifeblood from our national veins. He waves the flag, and rattles armaments, and assures us we are a great country. We are a great country, but he ignores that we are now a declining country, in deep trouble. >>

I just heard a GOP talking head on MSNBC talk about how (paraphrasing) McSame spoke from the heart, found his voice, hit his stride, and sees what he has to do for the next 80 days.; The translation, obviously, is that he's finally memorized the talking points and can regurgitate them without wandering off topic.

McSame stumbled badly on the $5M comment, but otherwise failed to provide a lot of hit piece fodder.

<< ( from the Todd piece) Every Obama answer was certainly thoughtful enough but he seemed to want to explain himself too much and went out of his way not to offend folks who disagree with him.>>

Note to Barack Obama: You're running for President; nothing is "above your pay grade." That response (made in response to Warren's question about when an infant gets rights) may be the single stupidest thing I've heard him say, and given that he had to know it was coming makes me shake my head. Yes, it's a deep issue, and yes, it's complicated -- but what most of America wants is a simple, straightforward answer. An answer like, "Rick, the courts have ruled that a woman can end a preganancy at 26 weeks, and as President I'd have to stand by that ruling" or "Rick, I know where you're going here, but I defend a woman's right to legally end a pregnancy" would have worked. Hemming and hawing around the answer was pretty bad, and will make people wonder what the Hell else is above his pay grade.

[DeepModem Mom]

45. I think your suggested answers make sense, Omaha.

Often, simpler is infinitely better. And, in a "debate" format, clear and succinct. Maybe Axelrod should put you on the debate prep team!

[OmahaBlueDog]

47. Thanks, DMM. There's another thing I need to vent about

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080817/pl_politico/12583;_ylt=AgWIxnJcAmFjMdgwovYsDrutOrgF

From Politico

"...hen asked by Warren to name three people he considers wise and would rely on for counsel as president. Nunn was listed after Obama's wife and his 85-year-old grandmother.

McCain threw in a vice presidential possibility, as well: former Ebay CEO Meg Whitman, whom he described as someone he valued in economically difficult times. He also mentioned Gen. David Patraeus and, surprisingly, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). "

While I understand the answer and what Barack was trying to convey, here is the attack ad you know will come:

"It's 3AM. The phone rings. The voice on the other end of the phone says that Iran has launched a Safir rocket in response to an Israeli air strike. Who do you want answering that phone... the man who will seek the advice of General David Petraeus, or the man who will call his 85 year old grandmother?"

All I can say is thank goodness we still have time for some lessons in Presidential Debating 101. Barack has much to learn, and a month in which to learn it.

[dkf]

50. I thought Obama's answer was the correct one.

Generally, he talks to his wife, and his family. But when it comes to policy, he speaks to whoever he considers an expert in that field.

[OmahaBlueDog]

51. I like the way you put that answer a lot better.

[dkf]

49. Even the Vatican doesn't claim to know that precise answer

From the lips of Ratzinger:

"The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature (as to the time of ensoulment), but it constantly affirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/when-an-embryo.html

[OmahaBlueDog]

52. But ask a priest about abortion, and you'll get a very succinct answer

"Abortion is wrong under any circumstance; life begins at conception"

(note: I didn't say "ask any Catholic")

People would rather hear a short, declarative answer with which they don't agree than what they perceive as equivocation.

[dkf]

53. I don't think being in line with the Pope is a bad thing

for a person of religion.