Irony Regarding Obama's Comment About Clarence Thomas

[Hunter]

I don't know how many of you watched the Saddleback Church Forum on Faith and Values last night. Both Obama and McCain spent one hour each with Pastor Rick Warren, who has written the famous devotional The Purpose Driven Life on a one-on-one basis. He asked the same questions to both candidates.

One of the questions that Pastor Warren asked both candidates was what current supreme court justice would you not have selected. Obama's answer was Clarence Thomas because he didn't feel like he had enough "experience" and wasn't qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

The funny part is that Clarence Thomas was a federal circuit judge for a little over a year and a half before he was nominated for the Supreme Court. Barack Obama was a senator for about the same time before he started running for President.

Irony to anyone else?

 

[Real]

Well he wouldn't have selected Scalia, Thomas, and didn't vote for Alito or Roberts, and it has nothing to do with experience.

That statement wasn't hypocritical, he just said it to cover up the real reason why he wouldn't vote for him. The last thing he wants to do is to say he wouldn't select originalist judges in front of an evangelical and largely pro-life crowd.

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama got a very good reception from the evangical audience. That he said he didn't like Thomas or the others appointed recently by republican presidents didn't fool anyone. Tho I do agree with Hunter that it highlighted Obama's own lack of experience.

My take is that Obama did fumble a few questions, particularly the one about his 3 most influential advisors (his wife?) and kind of rambled on during some of his answers. He did show a command of the issues and was generally impressive and comfortable. I don't agree that many of his solutions to the issues raised make a whole lot of sense. His biggest problem was in trying to pander to the evangicals while pandering to his base at the same time.

McCain cleaned Obama's clock on the foreign policy issues and also looked comfortable and in command of the issues. The differences in how both candidates would manage their economic agenda was quite clear. He was able to relate his POW experience to his ability to lead, and I think he may have put to rest any BS that's about to come his way about his first marriage. It was painfully evident with McCain that he had talking points to get out there and those were the awkward moments, like when he talked about secret ballot for unions. McCain is a pander bear, so his pandering wasn't unexpected.

I don't pay much attention to TV preachers, but I liked Warren's demeanor and questioning of the candidates.

McCain had a tough act to follow - Obama was very very good. My assessment is that McCain proved he is a worthy alternative to Obama and they're both kick-ass politicians (that doesn't speak to being able to govern well).

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh yeah, the blogosphere is suggesting that McCain somehow cheated. Take that for the two things it means:

1) They're apologizing for and making excuses for Obama not looking head and shoulders better than McCain
2) McCain more than held his own and proved it's going to be a tough choice for a lot of voters

 

[MikeDC]

My take is that Obama did fumble a few questions, particularly the one about his 3 most influential advisors (his wife?) and kind of rambled on during some of his answers.

Especially since Warren specifically asked him not to talk about his wife.

 

[AEM]

Thomas was also head of the EEOC for several years, which is far more experience than being a state senator...

 

[huevonkiller]

Obama got a very good reception from the evangical audience. That he said he didn't like Thomas or the others appointed recently by republican presidents didn't fool anyone. Tho I do agree with Hunter that it highlighted Obama's own lack of experience.

My take is that Obama did fumble a few questions, particularly the one about his 3 most influential advisors (his wife?) and kind of rambled on during some of his answers. He did show a command of the issues and was generally impressive and comfortable. I don't agree that many of his solutions to the issues raised make a whole lot of sense. His biggest problem was in trying to pander to the evangicals while pandering to his base at the same time.

McCain cleaned Obama's clock on the foreign policy issues and also looked comfortable and in command of the issues. The differences in how both candidates would manage their economic agenda was quite clear. He was able to relate his POW experience to his ability to lead, and I think he may have put to rest any BS that's about to come his way about his first marriage. It was painfully evident with McCain that he had talking points to get out there and those were the awkward moments, like when he talked about secret ballot for unions. McCain is a pander bear, so his pandering wasn't unexpected.

I don't pay much attention to TV preachers, but I liked Warren's demeanor and questioning of the candidates.

McCain had a tough act to follow - Obama was very very good. My assessment is that McCain proved he is a worthy alternative to Obama and they're both kick-ass politicians (that doesn't speak to being able to govern well).

I thought they both did well, but I don't understand how McCain put to rest those infidelity issues with this type of crowd. Thing is, that isn't a defining issue anyway so whatever.

In that forum, why did McCain do so much better on foreign policy?

 

[Denny Crane]

I thought they both did well, but I don't understand how McCain put to rest those infidelity issues with this type of crowd. Thing is, that isn't a defining issue anyway so whatever.

People were quick to defend John Edwards' infidelity by attacking McCain's first marriage/divorce.

McCain was asked what the biggest moral failure in his life was, and he said it was his first marriage. What more do you want from the guy?

In that forum, why did McCain do so much better on foreign policy?

Because he has a clue about foreign policy - more than a clue. His knowledge about the situation in Georgia, and the fact he knows many of the world leaders personally, showed. That and his answers generally showed he has a fantastic handle on it.

 

[huevonkiller]

People were quick to defend John Edwards' infidelity by attacking McCain's first marriage/divorce.

McCain was asked what the biggest moral failure in his life was, and he said it was his first marriage. What more do you want from the guy?

In that verbal flourish, he didn't directly address what he did wrong, just that his first marriage went "wrong". Seemed a little vague that's all I'm saying.

Because he has a clue about foreign policy - more than a clue. His knowledge about the situation in Georgia, and the fact he knows many of the world leaders personally, showed. That and his answers generally showed he has a fantastic handle on it.

Well I got the impression McCain was just more willing to talk about the Georgia-Russia conflict, not that Obama doesn't have a clear understanding of that situation. I'm sure McCain is savvy on this issue, but I trust Obama will be able to network and create amiable relationships with various foreign leaders, if given the opportunity.

 

[44Thrilla]

People were quick to defend John Edwards' infidelity by attacking McCain's first marriage/divorce.

McCain was asked what the biggest moral failure in his life was, and he said it was his first marriage. What more do you want from the guy?

To me, it sounded like he was saying the fact that he got a divorce was a moral failure, he never mentioned any infidelity.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't know there was any infidelity. To a moral/Christian man, the failure of a marriage, for any reasons, is a moral failure. What else is there to say on the issue?

 

[huevonkiller]

I don't know there was any infidelity. To a moral/Christian man, the failure of a marriage, for any reasons, is a moral failure. What else is there to say on the issue?

The reason one's marriage fails matters to most of the Christians I know.

 

[Denny Crane]

What reason?

 

[huevonkiller]

What reason?

Surely the magnitude of the moral failure is important?

 

[Denny Crane]

People sin, don't they?

I don't know how he could apologize for what happened any clearer or succinct than he did.

 

[huevonkiller]

People sin, don't they?

I don't know how he could apologize for what happened any clearer or succinct than he did.

I don't think he was clear in this particular forum.

 

[Denny Crane]

He called it the greatest moral failure in his life. Bar none. "Moral failure" means he did "WRONG"

What did you want him to say, "I quit, let Obama have the presidency?"

 

[huevonkiller]

He called it the greatest moral failure in his life. Bar none. "Moral failure" means he did "WRONG"

In 10-15 years I could say the exact same thing but it would be a very different circumstance. The context matters, a casual voter might not understand. That's all.

What did you want him to say, "I quit, let Obama have the presidency?"

Yes, obviously.

 

[Denny Crane]

What context?

His marriage failed.

He didn't lie to the press 2 weeks ago and get caught in a hotel room with his mistress.

 

[huevonkiller]

What context?

His marriage failed.

He didn't lie to the press 2 weeks ago and get caught in a hotel room with his mistress.

Why do they have these discussions? Can one truly understand the issues in such a short amount of time?

These meetings are for casual followers of politics, or people who want to know what kind of man McCain/Obama is. In either case I think he should have clarified why his marriage failed. Did he get dumped for being a cocaine addict? The details affect one's impression.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why do they have these discussions? Can one truly understand the issues in such a short amount of time?

These meetings are for casual followers of politics, or people who want to know what kind of man McCain/Obama is. In either case I think he should have clarified why his marriage failed. Did he get dumped for being a cocaine addict? The details affect one's impression.

He's been married for a long time to his current wife. They've adopted children, etc., etc. His behavior as a POW, refusing early release so his fellow prisoners could get out sooner... These things speak to his character and the impression people should have of him.

Most marriages fail, and for all kinds of reasons.

The whole point was that he said what he had to, as little as he had to, and people are going to accept it for what it is - the biggest moral failure of his life.

 

[huevonkiller]

He's been married for a long time to his current wife. They've adopted children, etc., etc. His behavior as a POW, refusing early release so his fellow prisoners could get out sooner... These things speak to his character and the impression people should have of him.

Most marriages fail, and for all kinds of reasons.

The whole point was that he said what he had to, as little as he had to, and people are going to accept it for what it is - the biggest moral failure of his life.

Yes he has moral/character issues going for him, I was just criticizing something that in my opinion has nothing to do with my party affiliations.

I wouldn't necessarily hang the balance of the election on this little discussion we're having.

I thought they both did well, but I don't understand how McCain put to rest those infidelity issues with this type of crowd. Thing is, that isn't a defining issue anyway so whatever.

The whole point to me was, that he was very uncomfortable talking about this issue (obviously) and he skirted around it as quickly as he could. Not a bad political move on his part, but somewhat misleading.

 

[Real]

The only reason John McCain's marriage failure is coming up is because he's running against a Democrat for the President of the United States, and those who bring it up want to taint McCain's judgment and character.

Why even discuss this crap anymore?

 

[huevonkiller]

The only reason John McCain's marriage failure is coming up is because he's running against a Democrat for the President of the United States, and those who bring it up want to taint McCain's judgment and character.

Why even discuss this crap anymore?

He was asked a question, and he didn't fully answer it imo.

I'm not bringing up anything or weighing this problem too heavily.

 

[Real]

He was asked a question, and he didn't fully answer it imo.

I'm not bringing up anything or weighing this problem too heavily.

He's already answered this question before. He is quoted as saying that his marriage falling apart was his fault, not the war's, not anyone or anything else.

Maybe he thought that he answered the question sufficently enough and didn't have to go into exact detail. Maybe he assumed that everyone in the audience knew that he cheated on his wife.

Whatever the case, it's clear that the Democrats are trying to wash their hands of John Edwards and attack John McCain at the same time.

 

[huevonkiller]

He's already answered this question before. He is quoted as saying that his marriage falling apart was his fault, not the war's, not anyone or anything else.

Maybe he thought that he answered the question sufficently enough and didn't have to go into exact detail. Maybe he assumed that everyone in the audience knew that he cheated on his wife.

Whatever the case, it's clear that the Democrats are trying to wash their hands of John Edwards and attack John McCain at the same time.

Well my comments are still valid. I'm not psychic though, I have no idea what his intent was.

I'm not attacking McCain and then defending Edwards.

 

[Denny Crane]

Back to the subject at hand...

I think both candidates kind of blew the answer to the question about SCOTUS justices. The answers were partisan and predictable. If I were McCain, I would have answered something along the lines of, "I think all the justices are brilliant and we're fortunate to have them, but you can expect my picks to be along the lines of Scalia or Roberts or Alito."

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303952351194789

No Contest

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Last weekend's McCain-Obama protodebate made it clear why Obama won't keep his promise to debate McCain "anywhere, anytime." McCain, with a robust resume and details at his fingertips, won big.
<hr size="1"> Read More: Election 2008 | Religion
<iframe src="http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3?http://podcast.outloudopinion.com/ibd/ibd2.php" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" width="480" frameborder="0" height="30"></iframe>
<hr size="1"> It was only in May that Sen. Barack Obama cockily proclaimed he would debate Sen. John McCain "anywhere, anytime." But in June, Obama said no to McCain's challenge to have 10 one-on-one town hall meetings.

After what happened at Lake Forest, Calif.'s evangelical Saddleback megachurch Saturday evening, we may have found that debating is Obama's Achilles' heel. Whether or not you like the idea of such events being held in religious venues, the plain-and-simple method of questioning used by Saddleback pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren revealed fundamental differences between these two men.

"It's one of those situations where the devil is in the details," Obama said at one point. He could have been referring to his own oratorical shortcomings when a teleprompter is unavailable. We learned a lot more about the real Obama at Saddleback than we will next week as he delivers his acceptance speech in Denver before a massive stadium crowd.

The stark differences between the two came through the most on the question of whether there is evil in the world. Obama spoke of evil within America, "in parents who have viciously abused their children." According to the Democrat, we can't really erase evil in the world because "that is God's task." And we have to "have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil."

For McCain, with a global war on terror raging, there was no equivocating: We must "defeat" evil. If al-Qaida's placing of suicide vests on mentally-disabled women and then blowing them up by remote control in a Baghdad market isn't evil, he asked: "You have to tell me what is."

Asked to name figures he would rely on for advice, Obama gave the stock answer of family members. McCain pointed to Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq's scourge of the surge; Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who "had his skull fractured" by white racists while protesting for civil rights in the 60s; plus Internet entrepreneur Meg Whitman, the innovative former CEO of eBay.

When Warren inquired into changes of mind on big issues, Obama fretted about welfare reform; McCain unashamedly said "drilling" — for reasons of national security and economic need.

On taxes, Obama waxed political: "What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code." McCain showed an understanding of what drives a free economy: "I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth."

To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama's shallowness juxtaposed with McCain's depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.

It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable.

 

[Real]

I'm kind of disappointed that Obama didn't take up McCain's offer to travel together and do town halls together like Kennedy and Goldwater were supposed to. I personally can't get enough of townhalls or debates, and I think that it would be a sign that things really are changing in politics if the two candidates travel together.

 

[huevonkiller]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303952351194789

No Contest

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Last weekend's McCain-Obama protodebate made it clear why Obama won't keep his promise to debate McCain "anywhere, anytime." McCain, with a robust resume and details at his fingertips, won big.
<hr size="1"> Read More: Election 2008 | Religion
<iframe src="http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3?http://podcast.outloudopinion.com/ibd/ibd2.php" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" width="480" frameborder="0" height="30"></iframe>
<hr size="1"> It was only in May that Sen. Barack Obama cockily proclaimed he would debate Sen. John McCain "anywhere, anytime." But in June, Obama said no to McCain's challenge to have 10 one-on-one town hall meetings.

After what happened at Lake Forest, Calif.'s evangelical Saddleback megachurch Saturday evening, we may have found that debating is Obama's Achilles' heel. Whether or not you like the idea of such events being held in religious venues, the plain-and-simple method of questioning used by Saddleback pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren revealed fundamental differences between these two men.

"It's one of those situations where the devil is in the details," Obama said at one point. He could have been referring to his own oratorical shortcomings when a teleprompter is unavailable. We learned a lot more about the real Obama at Saddleback than we will next week as he delivers his acceptance speech in Denver before a massive stadium crowd.

The stark differences between the two came through the most on the question of whether there is evil in the world. Obama spoke of evil within America, "in parents who have viciously abused their children." According to the Democrat, we can't really erase evil in the world because "that is God's task." And we have to "have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil."

For McCain, with a global war on terror raging, there was no equivocating: We must "defeat" evil. If al-Qaida's placing of suicide vests on mentally-disabled women and then blowing them up by remote control in a Baghdad market isn't evil, he asked: "You have to tell me what is."

Asked to name figures he would rely on for advice, Obama gave the stock answer of family members. McCain pointed to Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq's scourge of the surge; Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who "had his skull fractured" by white racists while protesting for civil rights in the 60s; plus Internet entrepreneur Meg Whitman, the innovative former CEO of eBay.

When Warren inquired into changes of mind on big issues, Obama fretted about welfare reform; McCain unashamedly said "drilling" — for reasons of national security and economic need.

On taxes, Obama waxed political: "What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code." McCain showed an understanding of what drives a free economy: "I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth."

To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama's shallowness juxtaposed with McCain's depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.

It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable.

So the author is saying Michelle Obama is going to dictate the military? Obama's answers were like an ink blot test, or word association games. Sometimes he gave the answers that first came to his head, not that he doesn't care about terrorists or is not willing to listen to military leaders. Obama doesn't believe in terrorism because he acknowledges some atrocities around the world? Seemed like a scare tactic on the author's part.