McCain Blows Obama Away At Saddlebrook

[Teresa]

So he has worked with churches and local organizations... *Well THAT is a true accomplishment.*
He has taught Law at Harvard.........  * along with thousands of other College graduates*

But he can think in his own words, not parrot what has been written for him.

Ah, yes like the 60 states.  (57 plus one to go, and Alaska and Hawaii.   Or was he thinking the 57 Isalmic States?)
Or the "big bomb" dropped on Pearl Harbor.
Or the 10,000 killed in Kansas when it was only 12.
Or the the geographical orientation that makes Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois.

See Michelle Malkin for a list of how well he speaks in his own words.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjY2YzZWVkMjdkMDEzMGQ0MjJkNTUyN2FkNmMzYTc=

[sixdogsmom]

Linda Bergthold 
Leaks in McCain's Cone of Silence?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   

   
I must admit that listening to McCain answer Pastor Rick Warren's questions so quickly and glibly Saturday night at the Saddleback Faith Forum made me wonder if he somehow knew them in advance. He was so confident, so concise. But I put the thought aside as unduly paranoid -- that is until Sunday afternoon. I was routinely checking my favorite election website fivethirtyeight.com and the webmaster, Nate Silver, referred to a piece in Daily Kos about the whereabouts of John McCain for the first thirty minutes of Senator Obama's interview with Rick Warren. Was he in a cone of silence? Apparently not.

Daily Kos blogger Furiousxxgeorge wrote at 3:27 pm Pacific time the following blog:

Pastor Warren, the host of last night's forum was just on CNN. In an interview with Rick Sanchez the pastor admitted McCain was not even at the Church for the first half hour of the event. This admission comes as a surprise to those of us who watched the event and were told many times that McCain was at the Church and in isolation.CNN says they talked to McCain's camp and they said no one in his camp was listening. The honor system, are you kidding me?I think it is pretty clear at this point McCain did indeed know the questions in advance.

Is this a big deal or not? It seems like someone ought to ask both McCain and Warren what really happened. The "truthiness" of this Forum is at stake. Warren will be on CNN Monday night, August 18 at 9 pm Eastern/6 pm Pacific. Tune in and comment!

Update 1: Pastor Warren states that McCain told him he did not "hear" the questions. He was in a motorcade from his hotel to the church, arriving about 30 minutes into the Obama interview hour. McCain did not say whether anyone else on his staff "heard" the questions, however. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/17/warren-mccain-did-not-violate-cone-of-silence/

Update 2: Warren has now given 2 or 3 different versions of which questions he told the candidates about prior to the event. First he said he told them about the orphan question and the abortion question. Then he said he told them about the "wise advisers" question and the "moral failure" question. That's four questions so far. Are there more?

John McCain
Barack Obama

I must admit that listening to McCain answer Pastor Rick Warren's questions so quickly and glibly last night at the Saddleback Faith Forum made me wonder if he somehow knew them in advance. He was so...

[Warph]

Oh my God, SDM.... You're a Kossack!  Ol' George Soros would be proud of you, since he secretly OWNS the "Daily Kos."
Does this mean you're a Socialist/Communist?  It must be if you are quoting the Daily Krumb... er.. Kos.  Nobody reads that rag unless they are so far left that they can reach out and touch the doors to the Kremlin.  I guess you support Putin and the carnage he caused in Georgia.  Most of the Kossacks do.

[Tobina+1]

I'll admit before I go on; I did not watch this TV interview.  I did watch snippets of it, and I did watch an interview with Warren after the fact.  So, this is why I make this point...
I think that before everyone gets out of hand here, let's step back and take a look at the purpose of this whole interview/forum with Warren.  It was designed so that America could hear more personal information about their candidate to help them make a more informed choice.  It doesn't matter who "won", as this was not a competition.  This was supposed to be about each candidate opening their personal and moral chest and letting us all look in.  How you view their decisions should be based on what your own moral chest looks like.
So, instead of bashing the other candidates... and each other on this forum... stop and take a look and see if your candidate "won" in your own heart and mind.  Do you think he answered the questions with honesty and conviction?  Do you think that his moral decisions fall in line with your own?  Do you think you can stand behind this candidate if/when he gets elected and leads this country in the future?  Will you be proud to say in 4 years; "yes, I voted for this man"?
Too much bashing.  Too much bragging.  Too much lying.  Not enough honesty and conviction.

[pam]

Exactly Tobina

[flo]

Remember that FAST or BEING FIRST TO ANSWER is not always the best.

[Catwoman]

He was talking about experience with the law and constitutional law in particular. Obama has served more elected time than Hillary Clinton for that matter. He also worked with churches and local organizations in Chicago to improve neighborhoods. He also taught law at Chicago University. Know youe facts! At least Obama didn't use catch phrases from his campaign to pander to the audience. But he can think in his own words, not parrot what has been written for him.

I wouldn't bet anything I couldn't afford to lose on that one...the only difference between those two snakes is that one needs a teleprompter...the other one is still young enough to have a decent memory and can spout whatever his writer concocted.

[Teresa]

 http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_clarence_thomas/2008/08/18/123019.html?s=al&promo_code=680C-1

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama declared that he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court because he was not a "strong enough jurist" for the job.

Appearing at a forum at pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., on Saturday, Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain were both asked which Supreme Court Justices they would not have nominated.

McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.

Obama said: "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he ... was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution."

He added that he also wouldn't have nominated Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, "though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job," The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial on Monday.

The editorial continued: "So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court."

Obama, on the other hand, "isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note [with] his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a 'community organizer' and law school lecturer," The Journal observed.

"Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's presidential résumé by any measure."