First thoughts on McCain & Obama

[Qikdraw]

Last night they were at the Saddleback church.

First off... Obama needs to shut up already! Answer the question and shut up. He goes on and on, and he's very eloquent and he tries to be as expansive as he can, but its just too much. Shut up already. I was disappointed in some of his answers as well, I felt he pulled back on abortion and same sex marriage. Basically it was a fault of his running on, which is his major fault.

McCain needs to stop saying 'my friends'. Its really bloody annoying, and he doesn't sound sincere at all.

I think McCain 'won' the interviews, but honestly I don't believe a word he says. He pretty much put talking points in and its just too much.

He meantions the US was founded upon Judaeo-Christan values, and The founding Fathers would disagree. The US was founded on British Common Law.

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
George Washington

I realise he's playing to his crowd, but I feel he was doing that the entire night.

Obama talked around the issue of 'baby rights' if it begins at conception or not. McCain ducked around the 'when are you considered rich' question.

I was disappointed in Obama, and I was irritated with McCain. But overall I think McCain will come out looking a bit better, basicaly because he didn't take too long with his answers.

Just my first thoughts.

[Navigator]

I was disappointed in Obama, and I was irritated with McCain. But overall I think McCain will come out looking a bit better, basicaly because he didn't take too long with his answers.



Notwithstanding your critique of both McCain & Obama, it sounds like you prefer sound bites over thoughtful comprehensive answers. Each to his own.

I, personally, can't wait until we have adults making decisions in the White House again.

I watched both candidates and I came to the opposite conclusion. I would like to have a President who thinks things through completely before answering a question or making a decision.

What do you think about the news, today, that Pastor Rick Warren told Larry King last night...in answer to Kings question...that McCain was not in a "cone of silence" during Obamas questioning, but was in his (McCain's) limo driving to the church and would have been able to hear Obama's questions and answers on the local radio station or any open phone line from an audience member or via a radio link with staff members who were in the audience?

[nudepaulc]

Notwithstanding your critique of both McCain & Obama, it sounds like you prefer sound bites over thoughtful comprehensive answers. Each to his own.


What do you think about the news, today, that Pastor Rick Warren told Larry King last night...in answer to Kings question...that McCain was not in a "cone of silence" during Obamas questioning, but was in his (McCain's) limo driving to the church and would have been able to hear Obama's questions and answers on the local radio station or any open phone line from an audience member or via a radio link with staff members who were in the audience?

It that's true, once again we see that you cant trust those people who tell us that they are upright and "Christian". This is the kind of thing that makes many of us to turn away from organized churches .

[Qikdraw]

Notwithstanding your critique of both McCain & Obama, it sounds like you prefer sound bites over thoughtful comprehensive answers. Each to his own.

Actually I prefer Obama, but I was looking at it in the eyes of the average American, someone who is not well informed on issues.


I, personally, can't wait until we have adults making decisions in the White House again.

I agree, it will be nice to have Obama in the White House.


I watched both candidates and I came to the opposite conclusion. I would like to have a President who thinks things through completely before answering a question or making a decision.

Well if Obama wants to connect to more Americans he is going to have to cut short his answers. I am an Obama supporter and I thought he was getting too long winded. There are ways to say the same thing but in half the words, and Obama is going to have to learn to do that.


What do you think about the news, today, that Pastor Rick Warren told Larry King last night...in answer to Kings question...that McCain was not in a "cone of silence" during Obamas questioning, but was in his (McCain's) limo driving to the church and would have been able to hear Obama's questions and answers on the local radio station or any open phone line from an audience member or via a radio link with staff members who were in the audience?

Well Both were given general ideas of subjects, so they had time to prepare things they might say. However the 1st two questions were hidden from candidates, and McCain not leaving until later does call into question if he was able to get to hear those two, and form up answers. His very smart response to the 'moral failure' question does make that questionable. With the recent Edwards scandal, and the knowledge McCain did the same thing was going to hurt him among evangelicals, but that was neatly sidestepped when he said his greatest moral failure was his first marriage.

As to him doing that on purpose, it is certainly possible, but there is really no sense in making a huge deal out of it. Overall both did well, although as I said I think McCain came out ahead a bit.

[Centauri4]

Why is it so important for a politician's position on EVERYTHING to be known? Is this the only accurate predictor of how they will act on an issue or legislation later? I don't think it is.

What should be more important to us is that they "think" and adjust their answer to address the question put forth in the best way they know how. I don't expect every politician to have all the answers, many of the answers or even SOME of the answers, but I do expect them to be patient, thoughtful and "open" to hearing all sides of an argument before taking action. These are the traits of someone I want in office, someone that is a good "fact gatherer" and "opinion factorer" (word?) and then acts conscientiously and decisively. Yes, we want someone that CAN make a decision and take action, but do we really want someone who has already planned HOW they will respond to any issue that comes up? I would rather see someone flexible and responsive in office, than someone scripted and so carefully groomed by their staff (handlers and advisors) that the "person gets lost in the politics". What use is there in being able to know EXACTLY how a politician will vote an issue? It only serves those who make a living talking about these predictions and likely actions... It does not serve the public at large for the most part.

I want a politician who is thoughtful, passionate, and self-expressive (can write well, speak well) but who is NOT completely and totally predictable. I want someone that will deliver an original answer to a question, some new ideas for the future, and demonstrate the quality of their education and experience more than their dedication to a "party line" and ability to deliver the same "sound bite" over, and over, and over consistently; any trained chimp can do that ~ we have opposeable thumbs and imagination, where are they?

Are we were beting on the outcome of a term in office at its END or hoping for the best performance over its entire course? The only absolute certain thing we can predict is that everyone will be four years older, four years from now.

Note: I am not referring to any particular present candidate in these statements.

~

[usmc1]

Notwithstanding your critique of both McCain & Obama, it sounds like you prefer sound bites over thoughtful comprehensive answers. Each to his own.

I, personally, can't wait until we have adults making decisions in the White House again.

I watched both candidates and I came to the opposite conclusion. I would like to have a President who thinks things through completely before answering a question or making a decision.

What do you think about the news, today, that Pastor Rick Warren told Larry King last night...in answer to Kings question...that McCain was not in a "cone of silence" during Obamas questioning, but was in his (McCain's) limo driving to the church and would have been able to hear Obama's questions and answers on the local radio station or any open phone line from an audience member or via a radio link with staff members who were in the audience?

Interesting contrast in how people prefer to get their information. We in North America have become so conditioned to the "sound bite" answer to highly complex world issue and domestic policy question.

Ir may may have changed, but once was, if you asked an Israeli politician a question, you would get a forty-five minute answer on the historical dynamic behind the issue, current day policy options, the likely consequences of each of those options, and why the politician preferred a particular option.

Americans, with the attention span of dog-gnats, would roll their eyes and wander off somewhere if they had to listen to such responses--Obama was, however, before an audience that likes such discussion. So we'll see--perhaps McCain's short, God did for me, answers might, in the long run, emerge as being seen as pandering.

But, I identify with him, ask me the time, and I'm likely to tell you how the watch was built!

[Navigator]

As to him doing that on purpose, it is certainly possible, but there is really no sense in making a huge deal out of it.


Listening to, or hearing about, the questions given Obama, and his answers, IS a huge deal Qikdraw. Cheating and thinking he wouldn't get caught goes straight to the character of the man. It calls into question both McCain's honesty and his judgement.

I suspect the media will bring it forward...at least I hope so. I understand that several reporters are already looking into the issue of whether or not McCain heard about the questions before he took the stage and the McCain Campaign is trying to deny he did without actually denying it. Thee something to the tune of: "Is that the sort of thing an ex POW would do"?

We'll see what happens...maybe McCain's campaign can sweep it under the rug or another bigger story will make it disappear.

As far as McCain pandering usmc1...his whole set of soundbites is pandering to his base. Half way through his time on stage I realized he could be a drinking game. Just take a swig whenever McCain says:

Prisoner of War
Ronald Reagan
My Friends
Activist Judges
Drill Drill, Drill
David Petreaus

The party will be hoppin' before McCain's even half way through his speech.

One good thing that Obama's thoughtful approach is doing is that it's forcing McCain to work for and pay for simply keeping his base voters - the far right and the religious right. He won't get the all important uncommitted votes if he keeps pandering to the wingnuts.

[Qikdraw]

Listening to, or hearing about, the questions given Obama, and his answers, IS a huge deal Qikdraw. Cheating and thinking he wouldn't get caught goes straight to the character of the man. It calls into question both McCain's honesty and his judgement.

Well I agree, but there are so many more important issues that we can point to on McCain's character that showing up late and potentially hearing questions pale in comparison. If the media wants to make a big deal out of this they are stupid, or protecting his other larger problems. Most people will not view it as important, 'so he heard a few questions, whats the big deal?' It will just be veiwed as a 'liberal media' attacking McCain on small things. Obama is laying off it, so I think we should follow his lead on this one.


I suspect the media will bring it forward...at least I hope so. I understand that several reporters are already looking into the issue of whether or not McCain heard about the questions before he took the stage and the McCain Campaign is trying to deny he did without actually denying it. Thee something to the tune of: "Is that the sort of thing an ex POW would do"?

Well that issue isn't important really, but other issues are. McCain's 'cross in the sand' story he told is one. His story has changed over the years (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/17/15300/5629/128/569386), from him not telling about it at all, to it being someone else, to it being him.

He might even have gotten the story from someone else (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/08/is-mccain-now-copying-solzheni.html).


We'll see what happens...maybe McCain's campaign can sweep it under the rug or another bigger story will make it disappear.

Well as I said him showing up late isn't that important considering other issues that are more important, so I hope they forget about it.


As far as McCain pandering usmc1...his whole set of soundbites is pandering to his base. Half way through his time on stage I realized he could be a drinking game. Just take a swig whenever McCain says:

Prisoner of War
Ronald Reagan
My Friends
Activist Judges
Drill Drill, Drill
David Petreaus

The party will be hoppin' before McCain's even half way through his speech.

LOL I think I could just get smashed on 'my friends' alone. :D


One good thing that Obama's thoughtful approach is doing is that it's forcing McCain to work for and pay for simply keeping his base voters - the far right and the religious right. He won't get the all important uncommitted votes if he keeps pandering to the wingnuts.

True, but as I said simple, but concise, answers will work better for Obama than long winded ones. Whay use 50 words when 25 will do just as well? This is a problem the democrats have and why republicans have kept so much support.

[Boreas]

I did not get a chance to see this debate or whatever it was because I was doing something else that night. I might have taken a short look at it had I been home.

I have a huge problem with such an event at such a mega-church. Frankly, I have a problem with such a mega-church and the issues involved in such an organization. I could go on, but it would risk hi-jacking the thread! :o

What ever happened to separation of church and state? Why is it so important for two candidates to express their views on religion or to express their views in a church context? This is a very foreign concept for me. I suspect (hope) there is no way it could happen here.

[MoonShadow]

Boreas, you are so right! I am in total disagreement with any political debate being held in any church of any size period!

This sets a not-so-favorable precedent when the church and state are separated and should always be separated.

[nimrod]

What ever happened to separation of church and state? Why is it so important for two candidates to express their views on religion or to express their views in a church context? This is a very foreign concept for me. I suspect (hope) there is no way it could happen here.

I have been asking the same questions for some time now. I do not like that either of the candidates actually showed up to this event, it shows that both will pander to those that have more religion then brains. I would love to hear a candidate say that their religion is a non-issue and that they are running for president not pope.

[Boreas]

I would love to hear a candidate say that their religion is a non-issue and that they are running for president not pope.

Wouldn't that be wonderful! :applause:

:hippy:

[Navigator]

I have a huge problem with such an event at such a mega-church. Frankly, I have a problem with such a mega-church and the issues involved in such an organization. I could go on, but it would risk hi-jacking the thread! :o



I agree completely Boreas, and also don't want to hijack the thread, but I did want to mention that I live about 30 minutes from Saddleback Church and around here, people who like me who don't go to it, refer to it as the "Big Box Church" or the "God-atorium".

Boreas is a pretty cool handle, BTW, for someone from the frozen north. (no pun intended) :p

[luvnaturism]

What ever happened to separation of church and state? Why is it so important for two candidates to express their views on religion or to express their views in a church context? This is a very foreign concept for me. I suspect (hope) there is no way it could happen here.

1. Separation of church and state was never intended to mean that the two shouldn't talk to each other, but only that neither should control the other.

2. Both candidates thought it was appropriate and important for the same reason: in 2004 78% of white evangelicals voted Republican, a vote total larger than the labor unions and African-American community combined delivered to the Democrat candidate. McCain would like to preserve that voting bloc, while Obama would like to peel some of it away.

3. No doubt each candidate was willing to participate in that specific church because Rick Warren is a personal friend of both. He is known internationally as someone who can be trusted not to ask either softball or unfair booby-trapped questions, and he is also known as an evangelical leader who isn't doctrinaire, i.e., he refuses to waste time on some of the issues and questions that bog down other evangelicals. Finally, the number of churches that can properly host the event and produce the TV show is small to start with, and not one of them has a pastor with Warren's reputation.

[luvnaturism]

This sets a not-so-favorable precedent when the church and state are separated and should always be separated.

Where on earth did you get the idea that it is a new precedent for candidates to appear in a place of worship to answer questions? Can you name an election in modern times when even one of the candidates refused to speak in a church or similar religious gathering?

Maybe there was some interesting precedent in having a pastor ask tough questions that no one in the media has been asking, and do it during a live broadcast (no editing; no reduction to sound bites), but to have the candidates appear in a church is nothing new.

Saying again what I said in the post above, separation of church and state was never meant to mean that the two don't speak to each other. It's just that the church does not dictate laws or force others to pay taxes for the support of religion, and the state does not use it's powers to favor any theology.

[usmc1]

Evangelical Christians (or at least people calling themselves that) are a powerful voice and element in our country. Some are good, honest, decent people trying to do what they believe is right. Some are idiots who have never read or studied the Sermon on the Mount or really thought about the Lord's Prayer in its full context of how to live one's life. Had they have done so, they wouldn't be such idiots.

Many evangelicals are uncomfortable with the extreme right positions which some claim is the only position for evangelicals.

Personally, I do not believe as they do about religion and spiritual matters, and do dislike their evangelizing their beliefs. But, still, they deserve to have their world view spoken to by politicians, and we heathens and barbarians benefit from hearing their views expressed in the way the questions were framed. Certainly caused me no injury or pain.

I've given my "stump speech" in churches and spoken to faith-based groups in organizing and building a progressive organization, and really find no conflict.

For me separation is about allowing religions to conduct themselves as they see fit, without government's interference. And it is about government, public and secular affairs and policy being conducted in a manner most secular, without any religion imposing its tenets, rites, dogmas, beliefs or creeds on the process.

You allow prayer in schools financed by public tax dollars and some whacko will have the kids yammering in tongues, kissing rattlers and drinking strychnine to prove their "faith". Screw that! We already got them seeing visions and dropping mushrooms, I think that is sufficient.

[luvnaturism]

It's not that often that I agree with USMC1, but we're on the same frequency here. Bravo.

[nuovonudo]

As far as McCain pandering usmc1...his whole set of soundbites is pandering to his base.

obama, of course, never panders to HIS base. of course. i suppose it would tarnish his halo . . .

[usmc1]

obama, of course, never panders to HIS base. of course. i suppose it would tarnish his halo . . .

Obama's got a halo? Wow, dude, like I never even noticed. Cooool!

You sure you're not one of those hippy-dippy new-agers seeing an aura around him? How old are you? You one of those children of the 60s and having a flashback?

Wow dude, like heavy man, a halo? Cooooool! You holding dude, know where I can score?

[Naturist Mark]

Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins - authors of the Left Behind series say that Obama is NOT the anti-Christ (http://edwardg.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/is-obama-the-antichrist-no-says-tim-lahaye/).

Wheh! THAT'S a relief!

-Mark

[hm0504]

Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins - authors of the Left Behind series say that Obama is NOT the anti-Christ (http://edwardg.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/is-obama-the-antichrist-no-says-tim-lahaye/).

Wheh! THAT'S a relief!

-Mark

Yeah, yeah, it's a relief for you because the primary reason they are saying that Obama is not the anti-Christ is that the anti-Christ wouldn't be American (assuming Obama's American credentials aren't falsified ;-) , what do you have to worry about).

Unfortunately, for us Canadians, if the anti-Christ is not American, that makes a greater chance that one of our non-Conservative party leaders is. Safe to say that the anti-Christ would certainly not be a so-con, right?

[usmc1]

Oh no, a cut & paste, straight from my masters at the Obama press office, CNN's Jack Cafferty. Well, at least, I now know what to think, it's been a strain, not knowing all this time. LOL

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Russia invades Georgia and President Bush goes on vacation. Our president has spent one-third of his entire two terms in office either at Camp David, Maryland, or at Crawford, Texas, on vacation.
His time away from the Oval Office included the month leading up to 9/11, when there were signs Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America, and the time Hurricane Katrina destroyed the city of New Orleans.

Sen. John McCain takes weekends off and limits his campaign events to one a day. He made an exception for the religious forum on Saturday at Saddleback Church in Southern California.

I think he made a big mistake. When he was invited last spring to attend a discussion of the role of faith in his life with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, McCain didn't bother to show up. Now I know why.

It occurs to me that John McCain (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/John_McCain) is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven." Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.

Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?

<!--startclickprintexclude-->Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.

He was asked "if evil exists." His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to "the gates of hell." That was it.

He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.

One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/George_W_Bush) has -- virtually none.

Where are John McCain's writings exploring the vexing moral issues of our time? Where are his position papers setting forth his careful consideration of foreign policy, the welfare state, education, America's moral responsibility in the world, etc., etc., etc.?

John McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899 at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. His father and grandfather were four star admirals in the Navy. Some have suggested that might have played a role in McCain being admitted. His academic record was awful. And it shows over and over again whenever McCain is called upon to think on his feet.

He no longer allows reporters unfettered access to him aboard the "Straight Talk Express" for a reason. He simply makes too many mistakes. Unless he's reciting talking points or reading from notes or a TelePrompTer, John McCain is lost. He can drop bon mots at a bowling alley or diner -- short glib responses that get a chuckle, but beyond that McCain gets in over his head very quickly.

I am sick and tired of the president of the United States embarrassing me. The world we live in is too complex to entrust it to someone else whose idea of intellectual curiosity and grasp of foreign policy issues is to tell us he can look into Vladimir Putin's (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Vladimir_Putin) eyes and see into his soul.

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure. And the part that troubles me most is he seems content with himself.

He will leave office with the country $10 trillion in debt, fighting two wars, our international reputation in shambles, our government cloaked in secrecy and suspicion that his entire presidency has been a litany of broken laws and promises, our citizens' faith in our own country ripped to shreds. Yet Bush goes bumbling along, grinning and spewing moronic one-liners, as though nobody understands what a colossal failure he has been.
I fear to the depth of my being that John McCain is just like him.

[Naturist Mark]

Oh no, a cut & paste, straight from my masters at the Obama press office, CNN's Jack Cafferty. Well, at least, I now know what to think, it's been a strain, not knowing all this time. LOLDidn't you get the memo from the Obermeister? Our secret instructions are encoded in the MSNBC video stream - not CNN, which has been infiltrated by T.Boone Pickens ...

McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.

Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce.
Funny that he didn't think of saying PLAGIERISM, since that story (http://washingtonindependent.com/view/mccain-camp-denies) about the drawing of a cross in the dirt was lifted from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, which McCain first started telling as a story about a fellow POW 8 years ago, but in the last year it has morphed into a story about himself.

However, before we condemn him for deliberate confabulation, I think we have to consider the possibility that he has repeated the story so many times that he may actually believe it happened.

-Mark

[nuovonudo]

Obama's got a halo? Wow, dude, like I never even noticed. Cooool!

You sure you're not one of those hippy-dippy new-agers seeing an aura around him? How old are you? You one of those children of the 60s and having a flashback?

Wow dude, like heavy man, a halo? Cooooool! You holding dude, know where I can score?

uz_mick, i didn't know that you COULD laugh. i'm actually relieved, a bit. maybe you're not as bitter and hysterical a lefty lib as i had you pegged to be. my bad.

har de har har, and best regards,
--andy

p.s. "no" to the new-ager charge; "not guilty" to the charge of being a 60s flowerchild--not quite as old as bill and hillary, so i don't count as a member of the "60s generation." as to the implied drug charge, well . . . i plead nolo contendere.

[Qikdraw]

Apparently McCain was name dropping at the foum and teh democrat he named says McCain is not close to him.


On Saturday night, at the forum at Saddleback Church, the Rev. Rick Warren asked John McCain to name “the three wisest people that you know that you would rely on heavily in an administration.” McCain listed three people: Gen. David Petraeus, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), and eBay CEO Meg Whitman.

It was nice, I suppose, for McCain to mention Lewis in this context. Indeed, I don’t doubt for a moment that Lewis is quite wise and would have a lot to offer McCain in the way of advice.

But it was more than a little odd to see McCain tout his support for Lewis’ wisdom given that McCain has largely ignored Lewis during their decades of concurrent congressional service. Jonathan Stein has the story:

At the time of McCain’s Selma speech, a Lewis associate told my colleague David Corn that McCain has never been close to Lewis. Lewis was not told about McCain’s speech in Selma in advance, nor was he invited to attend.

In response to McCain’s latest invocation of his name, Rep. Lewis said in a statement requested by Mother Jones, “I cannot stop one human being, even a presidential candidate, from admiring the courage and sacrifice of peaceful protesters on the Edmund Pettus Bridge or making comments about it.” But, he added, “Sen. McCain and I are colleagues in the US Congress, not confidantes. He does not consult me. And I do not consult him.”

Well, no, of course not. McCain is a conservative Republican with an underwhelming record on civil rights. Lewis is a progressive Democrat who has championed civil rights throughout his life.

McCain is going to “rely … heavily” on Lewis if elected? We should be so lucky.

McCain lying again. Will this guy say anything to get elected? It seems so.

[Qikdraw]

Ohhh there's more...

Sandbagged at Saddleback (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/08/19/sandbagged_at_saddleback/)


Tom Schaller broke it all down in War Room earlier, but I can't quite leave it alone. Now Rick Warren tells BeliefNet that Barack Obama is going to have to do more than "talk faith" to win evangelical votes, and compares an evangelical Christian voting for a pro-choice politician to a Jew voting for a Holocaust denier. I understand why many people say it was good for Obama to go to Warren's church nonetheless; I didn't feel that way, and I feel even less that way today. I loved Mike Madden's fair and informative stories on Saddleback Church this weekend (you'll find them here and here) but I thought it was telling he didn't find a single church member who said he or she would vote for Obama.

Nice eh?

[hm0504]

Isn't Iran essentially the political model for Christianists in the U.S. (and Canada and elsewhere)? In Iran, a theocracy controls who may run for office and has final say over the laws passed by the elected house.

[Naturist Mark]

Isn't Iran essentially the political model for Christianists in the U.S. (and Canada and elsewhere)? In Iran, a theocracy controls who may run for office and has final say over the laws passed by the elected house.

Yes, except that the Iranians are evil and the Christian Dominionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism) are Godly and Righteous.

Remember what John McCain said the correct response to evil was?

"Defeat it"

He meant Iran. And the Dominionist crowd at Saddleback loved it.

[usmc1]

Noted conservative pundit, twit, and closet nose-picker, George Will: "McCain showed his true personality this week and it makes some of us fearful!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/21/abc-panel-tears-into-mcca_n_128055.html

[Naturist Mark]

Barack Obama made it onto Keith Olbermann's Worst Persons in the World list. Ooops!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UCE-SvzEczU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UCE-SvzEczU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>