CS,

I can see why you would have preferred the follow-up questions you suggest, and I think plenty would agree with you.

However, those kind of follow-ups would be perceived as attacking - and would, I think, detract from the “civil” part of “civil forum.”

The questions should be asked and answered.  I don’t think that this particular forum would have been the place for them.

Rick Warren kept the interview interesting and on task.  Senator McCain prepared well to answer with brevity and in a way that would play well with Christians who try to live their faith.  Senator Obama appeared to approach the interview in a more relaxed fashion and did not show that he had prepared to answer to convince viewers that he anticipated the “best” answers for the audience.  Brevity rather than elaboration would have served Obama better.  McCain demonstrated that Obama must consider him a serious candidate.  His answer to the question---who is rich---was classic.  Obama asked the real question:  are we prepared to meet our maker today?  We need to get our house in order today rather than letting the next generation pay.  (We know not when we will die..........)

While I applaud Pastor Rick Warren’s very gut-level questions and interview approach, I came away feeling as though Senator Obama was more sincere, more “genuine” in his responses than was Senator McCain. McCain’s answers had a definite “political” flavor...and it felt more like he was playing to the crowd than was Senator Obama. I’m not saying Obama didn’t do his share of hedging the issues, indeed I believe some of his answers were vague and given with lots of wiggle room...however, I believe the answers he DID give were given without regard to the reaction of the audience. I felt McCain was playing up the fact that he is a “conservative” speaking before a typically conservative crowd.

I was most impressed with Rick Warren, whose interview style was honest, straightforward, and non-attacking. News media folks like Glenn Beck, and others who use the guise of “interview” to lambast, attack and harass their guests, should take note. Warren actually allowed the candidates TO FINISH THEIR SENTENCES and to SPEAK. He was not defensive. He was not antagonistic. I SO appreciated his “I will not endorse” stance and his honest effort to get to the heart of the issues.

Last evening Sen. Obama once again tried to gain credibility for the social causes he holds dear by invoking Matthew 25 (to which he frequently refers as one of his favorite verses in Scripture).  Notice, however, that he never references his favorite verse when “the least of these” is referring to unborn babies.

I don’t think the forum was slanted in McCains favor. It’s obvious that Warren and Saddleback believe that as a blessed country we are to be a blessing to others.  His PEACE plan almost pandered to, and provided a golden opportunity for Obama to talk about his “wealth redistribution” plan.  That probably would have played very well to that audience.  If you were listening carefully enough, when Warren asked the question of “what is rich, how much money?” I don’t think it would have hurt Obama in the least, in that audience to talk about taxes. In fact, when Obama talked about paying for all this stuff we have and that taxes needed to be raised, he got great applause.  So, for me, the forum seemed to provide opportunities for both candidates to score big points with the crowd.  It’s just that McCain realized in and took advantage of it and Obama didn’t.  I’m not being cynical and saying they were just playing politicians.  It seemed that they both spoke from the heart and the core of their beliefs.  All in all, I was shocked at how much I enjoyed the forum, even though I shy away from churches having any involvement in politics.  We don’t want to offend the unbelieving community before they hear the gospel because they think churches have a political agenda.  But if you wanted to express the importance of faith not being excluded from the public discourse, you couldn’t have done it better that Pastor Rick Warren.

Rick Warren ... very nice guy but very light on his follow up to their answers. 

For instance: if McCain is going to make the world safe for demorcracy and we’ll go and defend militarily those in Georgia, the Sudan, et. al I would have liked to now how he was going to pay for it.

A real indication of Warren’s lack of economic acumen.  I quote him “The US is the richest and most blessed nation in history ...” Well I must differ on the basis of facts.  We have the most material goods but our individual debt, national debt, state debt, and local debt, FAR OUTWEIGHS THE TOTAL WORTH OF ALL OUR MATERIAL GOODS.  In an era of declining wages that means we are technically bankrupt as a nation. 

If he would understand that then his questions about taxes would have been different.

McCain obviously came across as the better potential leader.  But his one HUGE shortcoming was his willingness to put us in more wars without a corrosponding program of wealth generation that is needed to pay for it.  We’re not talking 5 years here, we’re in this for the next century.

Someone here mentioned that McCain falsely believes that HE CAN DEFEAT EVIL.  I don’t think he meant that humans can necessarily defeat evil but that if good stands up to evil then evil will be defeated.  That’s a Biblical truth.  The reason why evil gets so much inroads and advancement is not because good can’t defeat it but because good goes ‘underground’ (saltless salt and hidden lights.)

Obama, well spoken and very likeable but there’s not a side of an issue that he won’t stake out if it means you’ll like him and elect him.  Not my man for President.

BTW, I came into that night hoping to like Obama more (I hadn’t really heard McCain for any length of time before the other night.)

I really liked the forum personally.  For those that missed it, RW was a facilitator of questions from a bunch of different people.  His role was to ask a set of questions that revealed to the listener what candidate felt, thought and believed.  He did this in stellar fashion. 

I for one appreciate the self control it took to remain neutral and not be in the center of the conversation.  This allowed each candidate to be seen much more clearly.  He did not come off as a pompous know it all, and clearly understood that he was using his influence to create a platform by which informed people could make an even more informed decision about who will be the next president of the United states, not preach. 

This was not about his understanding of economics, his view of sin, abortion, same sex marriage, taxes of for that matter God, the bible and Jesus.  This was about a pastor, who is on record being pro-life, bible believing, pro marriage (man and woman kind) understanding that he has influence very few pastors have today and him using that influence to help people see clearly each candidate. 

I find it too bad that in this matter we have to trash RW even when he did not sin, did not lie, did not break any of the commandments, and in fact used his reputation and life to leverage an opportunity for evangelicals to hear a candidates answers to some great questions. 

For those who think he needed to ask follow-up questions you simply missed the format.  He made sure it was even for both.  He could not have asked the same follow-up questions and had it be even since each candidate gave different answers.  I say THANK YOU RW!

One of these 2 men will be our next president.  They will select justices, they will put into motion actions on such topics as Stem Cell, Same Sex Marriage, Abortion, Terrorism, Taxes, global issues such as poverty, disease, orphans…

What RW did was ask where each Candidate stood on these issues without interjecting his opinion.  He allowed us to hear very clearly what our next president will do when elected.  It was not a preachers forum, it was not a debate on the sanctity of life, it was not a “correct the next president” on his views… It was not Paul, Peter, John the Baptist or any other bible character you want to trot out to prove a point you already missed. 

Obama showed his cards on that answer very clearly.  He not only revealed his double speak, he might have even gone for the gold and triple spoke.  RW did not need to say anything else for you or me to see what Obama thinks in this matter and how his faith informs or doesn’t inform his politics. 

I find it interesting that going into this, people were saying RW was not going to ask any questions that mattered… Then when he did, he is now being criticized, called a disgrace… and more not because his did not ask tough questions but because he did not go for the jugular. 

THIS was not a debate.  EACH candidate got the SAME questions.  This was NOT about RW’S opinions, it WAS about our NEXT PRESIDENTS OPINIONS. 

Was RW supposed to debate Obama?  Was he supposed to point out his sin, his divergence of faith and politics, should he have counseled McCain on a failed marriage?  This was not Oprah, Larry King, or the Areopagus at Mars Hill where a debate was supposed to happen.  This was a chance for our next president to respond to some questions “evangelicals” ask and to voice their thoughts on issues that “evangelicals” care about.

I agree Peter.  Maybe like Jesus instead of debat, RW used questions to reveal something.  Just sayin…

Great points Leonard, and IMO, appropriately “wound up.” Jesus didn’t wander around trying to “nail” everyone about their sin.  He just asked questions and allowed the questions and answers to make His point.  It says more about RW’s critics than it does about him that they seem to think the only “Christian” thing to do is make sure they’ve exposed his sin for the whole world to see.

I wasn’t all that bothered by Obama’s “above my pay grade” comment.  I think his point was that there are some things only God can know, and when life begins is one of those things.  Not that I agree with him, nor am I persuade that he really feels this way.  It could have been a completely political response, given the audience he was playing to.

One thing I do appreciate about his position (at least his statements) about abortion . . .
The evangelical position is all or nothing, repeal Roe v. Wade, make abortion illegal.  That’s the only option for them.  The Demo’s at least talk about the issue as multifaceted; issues that lead to unwanted pregnancies, creating and promoting more viable options, etc.  It would serve us well to incorporate these discussions into our public position on this issue.  Yes, stand up for the rights of the unborn, but also be equally public about what we are doing (and what we want America to do) to care for and help women who face an unwanted pregnancy; REGARDLESS OF THE CHOICE THEY MAKE.

Wendi

Forgive me here guys (and galz) but did someone here say that Rick was a travesty or that Rick was acting sinful or that Rick caused the church to lose .... et. al?

I must have missed it and if I did then I apologize.

And while I love to nuance things and make sure all bases are covered I can’t see how a person with a Biblical worldview can believe that abortion is a multi-faceted issue.  That’s why I didn’ t like Obama’s response to this question.  Either it’s killing a person or it’s not.  Period.  If it is then we should stop the practice immediately and if it’s not then let us continue with the law as it stands on the books.

I believe we all know how God’s Word falls on this issue.

While I don’t wear panties let me say that I did not see those comments here on the Forum soooo my apologies as I said.

Those comments were not profitable dialog.  Hopefully you did not find my name on any of those posts.

God’s peace!

Phil