Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[ghostrunner]

I'm glad I watched. Not pleased with all the questions and answers, but that's never going to happen. More stuff like this would be welcome.

- I like that McCain busted Bush's chops on the post 9/11 "go shopping" comment, though I think he said " go spend money." That always bugged me.

- People can criticize McCain for bringing up his POW experience all they want, but I think it's central to who he is and I find his accounts of it compelling.

Also - I really like both of these men and I think they're the best of each party. It's unprecedented in my life, as I've always disliked both choices.

The "evil" question was dumb.

[Arthur Dent]

My TV is dead. Any highlights?

[clement]

To provide a contrarian view, I think this kind of forum is not good for the process and sets a bad precedent. We have long held that this is a country with freedom of religion, with no state endorsement of any particular religion, and with a separation of church and state. That separation has been very strongly blurred in recent years and the activist evangelical movement has been largely responsible for that blurring. A forum of this sort gives legitimation to this movement. The fact that the particular person who moderated this event is non-partisan and viewed more positively by people on both sides of the political spectrum may make this event more palatable, but it's irrelevant.

What about a forum moderated by a rabbi and held in a large synagogue? How about a priest of a large Catholic church? What about Unitarians? Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus? Quakers? Do we only do this in an evangelical church because they are a more distinctly (and large, vocal and active) political voting bloc?

[ghostrunner]

To provide a contrarian view, I think this kind of forum is not good for the process and sets a bad precedent. We have long held that this is a country with freedom of religion, with no state endorsement of any particular religion, and with a separation of church and state. That separation has been very strongly blurred in recent years and the activist evangelical movement has been largely responsible for that blurring. A forum of this sort gives legitimation to this movement. The fact that the particular person who moderated this event is non-partisan and viewed more positively by people on both sides of the political spectrum may make this event more palatable, but it's irrelevant.

What about a forum moderated by a rabbi and held in a large synagogue? How about a priest of a large Catholic church? What about Unitarians? Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus? Quakers? Do we only do this in an evangelical church because they are a more distinctly (and large, vocal and active) political voting bloc?

Well, I don't care about the particular forum. It's the style I'm fond of. Giving candidates the opportunity to expound upon ideas is a good thing. If they want to do a Lincoln Douglas debate, I'm all for that too.

Having said that, as someone who's completely non-religious, I'm okay if they do one of these in a church of every faith. The separation thing has never been one hundred percent and it's not even codified. We have "In God we Trust" on the currency. That doesn't name a faith, but it does specify faith and a type of faith (montheism). We have a Pledge of Allegiance that is something of a tradition at this point, (which is ridiculous for a number of reasons) and it does include mention of God. Being agnostic, maybe I'm just used to making that concession. I could get upset about it, but to me it's a waste of time.

I think the reason this event happened is this guy asked the candidates, partly because he's of a sect (evangelicals in this case) that tends to be more organized and politically active than others. The candidates agreed, so I don't have a problem with it. I think to deliberately not do it because it's a church would be worse.

[jim]

To provide a contrarian view, I think this kind of forum is not good for the process and sets a bad precedent. We have long held that this is a country with freedom of religion, with no state endorsement of any particular religion, and with a separation of church and state. That separation has been very strongly blurred in recent years and the activist evangelical movement has been largely responsible for that blurring. A forum of this sort gives legitimation to this movement. The fact that the particular person who moderated this event is non-partisan and viewed more positively by people on both sides of the political spectrum may make this event more palatable, but it's irrelevant.

What about a forum moderated by a rabbi and held in a large synagogue? How about a priest of a large Catholic church? What about Unitarians? Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus? Quakers? Do we only do this in an evangelical church because they are a more distinctly (and large, vocal and active) political voting bloc?

I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "Yes".

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I can't believe Colmes would think they are one and the same. John Edwards cheated on his wife who had cancer. Bad. John McCain cheated on his wife and married someone hotter. Big, big, big difference.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. When he left his first wife at home to go on his Vietnam tour, he left a former model and their 3 young children. When he got home, he found a disfigured woman - she had spent 6 months in the hospital after a near fatal car accident. She was 4 inches shorter, walked on crutches and was heavier due to the massive injuries, 23 surgeries and physical therapy. You can verify this on her wiki page.

She never told him about the accident as she didn't want to burden him with it while he was in captivity.

In return for her heroic fight she watches while her husband starts philandering around and ultimately divorces her.

I'd say the similarities here are real and relevant.

[GatewaySnayke]

I only watched the first hour and then a bit of analysis from the Fox crew. The Statue of Charles Krauthammer was completely off base. When Warren asked Obama the three people he would rely on most, Obama had mentioned his wife, his mother and a few other people, Ted Kennedy included, that he goes to for advice. But I distinctly remember him saying that there would be more than three people that he would turn to. Krauthammer decided to frame Obama as saying "his wife, his mother and Ted Kennedy. That's weak."

[Radbird]

To provide a contrarian view, I think this kind of forum is not good for the process and sets a bad precedent. We have long held that this is a country with freedom of religion, with no state endorsement of any particular religion, and with a separation of church and state. That separation has been very strongly blurred in recent years and the activist evangelical movement has been largely responsible for that blurring. A forum of this sort gives legitimation to this movement. The fact that the particular person who moderated this event is non-partisan and viewed more positively by people on both sides of the political spectrum may make this event more palatable, but it's irrelevant.

What about a forum moderated by a rabbi and held in a large synagogue? How about a priest of a large Catholic church? What about Unitarians? Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus? Quakers? Do we only do this in an evangelical church because they are a more distinctly (and large, vocal and active) political voting bloc?

I agree with your concerns, but if we ideally are to be a society with freedom of religion as I understand it, then any religious group should be free to hold forums like this. So I would answer yes to your second paragraph questions. The last "yes" answer, about why we do this, is the issue, and why my idealistic viewpoint is probably unrealistic given today's reality.

[jim]

To provide a contrarian view, I think this kind of forum is not good for the process and sets a bad precedent. We have long held that this is a country with freedom of religion, with no state endorsement of any particular religion, and with a separation of church and state. That separation has been very strongly blurred in recent years and the activist evangelical movement has been largely responsible for that blurring. A forum of this sort gives legitimation to this movement. The fact that the particular person who moderated this event is non-partisan and viewed more positively by people on both sides of the political spectrum may make this event more palatable, but it's irrelevant.

What about a forum moderated by a rabbi and held in a large synagogue? How about a priest of a large Catholic church? What about Unitarians? Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus? Quakers? Do we only do this in an evangelical church because they are a more distinctly (and large, vocal and active) political voting bloc?

I agree with your concerns, but if we ideally are to be a society with freedom of religion as I understand it, then any religious group should be free to hold forums like this. So I would answer yes to your second paragraph questions. The last "yes" answer, about why we do this, is the issue, and why my idealistic viewpoint is probably unrealistic given today's reality.

Exactly. And if they have a large enough voting bloc so that the candidates care, they are going to get their hour.

[PujolJunkie]

McCain's "Cross in the Dirt" story stolen from Solzhenitsyn

It just sounded so fake and so contrived, so I did a little research about it. Someone on here said it sounded like a scene from Ben-Hur, so I did a google search about Ben-Hur and cross in the sand and such. No dice. But I searched around a little bit more and here is what I found. A story about Alexander Solzhenitsyn from his times in the Soviet Gulags.

....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/17 ... 239/569299

Downright [expletive] disgusting.