Saddleback: A Watershed Moment?
I spent a good part of Saturday at Saddleback Church, in Orange County, CA blogging live on the Obama-McCain debate, but felt too close to the action to provide analysis so I decided to wait a bit and weigh in after I had a chance to absorb all that I had seen and heard.
I was sorely tempted to skip the debate altogether when I got an email informing me that I'd be "covering" the event from a tent on the Saddleback campus where print journalists were to be exiled to. I decided I'd have more fun in the sanctuary where I could experience the crowd and the candidates first hand so I made my way into the sanctuary where I began to blog only to be ejected by a Secret Service agent who said I was to go back to the tent. After wrangling a ticket, said agent again tried to eject me, but eyeing my ticket said I could stay but not my computer. We worked out a compromise that allowed me to hang out with the TV crews and I was able to get my first scoop of the evening when I learned that the evening's moderator Rick Warren was sick, and I filed my first reports here. and here
Some observations:
Obama started strong. In fact, just showing up at this kind of an event which Democrats of yesteryear might not have gone to was a victory for him. But after a few minutes he seemed to run out of steam. I don't think the blame lies with which candidate had or didn't have questions ahead of time. I blame Obama's performance on Hawaii and the strategic mistake his campaign made by scheduling such an important event so close to the end of his vacation. Obama looked like I feel for the first few days after I get back from vacation: listless, too relaxed and wishing I was still on vacation. His mind was elsewhere.
His answers were measured, thoughtful and nuanced-the only problem was this wasn't a crowd that was looking for nuance. They were looking for what McCain offered up: straight, concise and clear answers.
There were a couple of key moments that I think will be remembered and we may very well look back on this event as a watershed moment in the race for the White House:
First, when Obama answered the 'when does a baby gain rights' question his answer that it was "above his pay grade" didn't seem flippant to me at the time, but upon reflection I can see why some in the crowd thought so. It was a tough question to be sure, but he would have been better off answering that he didn't know or offering up an obvious answer that would fit the pro-choice paradigm: that rights are accorded to a fetus at birth.
As for McCain, the money moment was his admission that his greatest moral failure was the demise of his first marriage. This was exactly what churchgoers needed to hear and this will inoculate him from attacks that are likely to come late in the campaign about the manner and timing of his parting with his first wife. Although we learned later that he knew the question was coming, for a split second he hesitated as though he was still trying to decide whether he should really go there. He did and it was exactly what the crowd wanted to hear.
His answer on when a fetus acquired rights (at conception) was clear and direct and the crowd ate it up.
Although McCain likely thinks that his story about the Vietnamese prison guard who drew a cross in the sand was a hit, I don't think it was terribly impressive. As someone once observed, that story is really a testimony about the faith of the guard and not McCain. It wasn't a dud, but it's the kind of story one tells about another when one's own story isn't quite good enough.
McCain also didn't endear himself to wives across America when he failed to name his wife as one of the people he would turn to for advice. I realize she's not an expert on Georgia or the Ukraine, but it would be nice to think that he a) considers her wise and b) would turn to her for general advice.
There has been much reporting about the cone of silence issue as well as whether or not the questions were given to each candidate ahead of time. Only McCain knows if he cheated, but it didn't seem to me as if he had heard Obama's performance and as I said, I blame the vacation planning not any advance notice for the gap in their performances. At one point Obama referenced having been forewarned about a question and a PBS reporter and I exchanged glances and commented to each other that it seemed as though there had been some advance notice.
Obama hit a homerun with his comment that he considered anybody who had sold 25 million copies to be rich. Never mind that Warren's sales are now up to 40 million, the comment was a hit even with this crowd of Warren supporters who are likely hoping that Warren's ego doesn't grow in tandem with his book sales.
As for Rick Warren, I think he acquitted himself well. I was expecting softball questions with no serious follow ups. What we got instead were smart, hardball questions with few followups and too many interruptions. It wasn't quite as bad as Charlie Rose who talks 25% of the time and interrupts regularly, but Warren's interruptions prevented us from hearing where McCain and Obama would have come down on the question of the Supreme Court's centrist, Anthony Kennedy. Would they have nominated Kennedy? We'll never know because Warren didn't let them finish their sentences.
I once heard Warren speak at a conference in Silicon Valley and remarked at the time to friends that this was "not your parents' televangelist." He's light years away from the charlatans of the '80's, sophisticated and smart and has taken steps to not repeat the mistakes other high profile preachers have made. Giving back his salary to the church for the past 30 years was smart as is driving the same car, living in the same house and giving away 90% of his income. But it was disappointing to see that church members who, presumably, already give a tenth of their income to the church, were having to pay upwards of $2,000 to buy tickets to attend an event at their own church. In fact as I was leaving the event I ran into a recent college graduate who had eagerly told me last year of his decision to be baptized at Saddleback. He said he had gotten all of his questions answered about the candidates. I didn't ask him who he had decided to vote for but I did ask him how much the ticket had cost him. $500 he replied, which is probably a week's salary for him. There's something not right about that.
I hope Saddleback will take all of the money they raised last Saturday, deduct the hard costs of the event, and then return whatever money is left over on a pro-rated basis to those who attended. It's the right thing to do and of all people, Rick Warren should have taken steps to avoid even the slightest appearance of his flock being fleeced.
Nevertheless, this event established Warren not just as America's pastor but also a referee of sorts who tried valiantly to hide his own biases and gave both candidates a fair hearing.
John McCain and Barack Obama came to Saddleback essentially tied. Although Obama wins points for showing up, McCain was the clear winner and we may look back on this night as the moment when the tide shifted and McCain began to secure his wayward churchgoing base of voters who realize that he's not quite one of them, but will likely vote him anyway.
Follow Mark Joseph on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markmjm
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The audience was applauding Mr Mccain so much, it was easy to be sucked into the illusion that he was doing great. I don't want to say Mr Mccain didn't do very well, but if you stop and think about it, a lot of his answers were far from extraordinary.
Take the rich questiuon He got thunderous applause for that. Everybody should be rich,and even if you can't quite make it, the rich are not happy anyway, it was a feel-good answer. But did it have substance? Here is a presidential candidate, who if elected, is expected to do some serious work to improve the economy. This is one of the major concerns, arguably THE major concern of this election. And THIS is his answer? The rich are not that happy anyway, so relax, O Ye Poor? Why is he waxing philosophical while the country suffers? No points for that one.
Next he says "i don't want to take anybody's money. I want everybody to be rich."' Very good, Applause. But HOW is everybody in USA going to be rich? It's not enough to say I WANT that to happen. We can't all marry heiresses. Coming from a presidential candidate it's totally vacuous. Is it an economically feasible goal that everybody should be rich? Or should more feasible goals be IMPROVED conditions for everyone, and pain relief for those who are suffering the most ? No points for wishful thinking either.
Lastly, when pressed for a number, he joked "5 million"' Now I appreciate humor as much as the next person, but when the country is spiraling into economic depression that joke not only fell flat, coming from a super-rich candidate it was almost obscene. Oh -- yeah-- no point's for that one either.
Rick Warren is a shameless pitchman, who did not succeed in hiding his own biases. Further, the entire setup was patently obvious -- as Barack and Americans not in this coccoon of military industrial complex/"John Birch Society" societal institutional privilege could see. It was totally appropriate for this mob to be charged to the max, because their hegemony and Evangelical zeal for bottomfeeders and legacy boyz as leaders -- have COST ALL AMERICANS.
Rick Warren gives back his salary and then uses his Church, flock, etc. as a PLATFORM FOR HIMSELF -- and is now jumping the shark in an attempt to do the same via the Nation's airwaves. We think NOT. He is a flawed arbiter -- representing an increasingly smaller constituency, nor does he represent ALL Christians. He doesn't answer questions but wants to ask them. He doesn't take a salary but charges thousands -- and garners FREE AIRTIME by hoodwinking Americans and MSM into thinking we were going to get REAL discourse about the intersection of Presidential Leadership and Faith -- NOT AN EVANGELICAL INFOMERCIAL.
Americans were duped and so were the MSM. The next time Rick Warren and Saddleback had better be ready to trade in their 501c3 status-- for the privilege of charging thousands to see/hear Candidates for the Presidency of the United States of America -- IN A CHURCH.
San Diego is one of the most conservative places on the planet. For pete's sake the conservatives made up most of the crowd. Nuance is lost on conservatives who see only black and white. The live in the grey areas but they insist that there be no grey - making them the biggest of hypocrites.
I prefer nuance to hard line. It means that the individual sees more than one possibility. McSame is Bush, only older. Even if he didn't think life began at conception, he wouldn't have admitted it to this crowd. More pandering from the number one pandered. Maverick? I think not.
Agreed.
Bush -- "....will capture Osama bin Ladin dead or alive..." 2001
2008, nada!
i grew up in san diego and i can attest to your contention of its conservativeness. when i was a kid in the 60s and 70s there was almost an element of the old south there to the point that i was forced to vote republican a couple of times because a democratic candidate was a klan memeber.
Hard to believe, but true. San Diego is a conservative city in the midst of liberal California. Of course, our city government is also corrupt, and has been for a couple decades. All my conservative friends try to explain that "conservatism" and "corruption" aren't actually the same thing, but this city demonstrates a lot of overlap of these ideas and I'm beginning to have other thoughts on the matter.
excuses excuses excuses...
McSame is just a little man incapable of seeing more than one side to any argument. I think he had on 4" lifts - no way he could have grown that much. Being a rethug must be so much simpler - everything is black and white. They're always right and everyone else is always wrong. What they are most guilty of is what they accuse others of.
O could have taken the easy road - the one McSame took - just tell the folks exactly what they want to hear, regardless of whether you believe it or not.
Obama unpreparedness came not from his answers but from his positions. He somehow could not call Al Queda evil and would not answer the "when does life begin" question. If your position is clear you will answer them under any circumstances very clearly. He nuances these positions not because he was unprepared or that he did not have the questions beforehand, he simply is trying to be everything to everyone. He wants to get the votes of his audience by pandering to them yet he does not want to offend his move-on (I cringe when I think I was a member there and donated as well in the past before they got on the Obama bandwagon) crowd.
What you say could be valid except for 70% of this audience were core republican voters, so how then is he trying to be something to those who he obviously then could have simply stated what he knew they liked? Your argument is stale and lacks evidence, as well as it ignores that Obama's goal wasn't to vote pander at all, it was to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not a scary black Muslim out to spread Marxist and socialist policy across the US once elected to the Presidency.
Like Joseph here, you have simply reset the markers already previous defined by the reasons the Obama campaign accepted this invitation to speak to this conservative audience, and then made-up some nonsense to suit your own so-called thinking. The mere fact you mention move-on and Saddleback in the same paragraph to criticize Obama shows you don't have a clue what you're saying.
I disagree. To say that Obama is a nuanced thinker is not to say that he is trying to "be everything to everyone." Rather, he is too smart and too honest to be willing to reduce complicated policy questions down to simple schtick and emotional anecdote. O. is better than that, and the question is whether enough of the American people are better than that. Clearly, most at Saddleback ate up the schtick.
The ubiquitous usage of the term "nuance" is really a euphemism for "not really having a position". Stammering through an answer while taking great pains to explain all possible positions which could be taken, examining all sides of the question, rambling on about the benefits of each plausible answer is not the sign of a brilliant, complex thought. It is an excuse for not taking a position. It's called triangulation in politics. He sounds like one of my old law school professors trying to explain how to answer a question on an exam. We're voting for a leader. Leaders have to believe in something. There are too many problems in the world which require decisive action. Simply blathering about every possible solution is not a substitute for a real solution. That's why McCain came across so well. People want someone who stands for something, and has the knowledge and experience in life and leadership positions to know what is best for America. That's how McCain comes across and I believe that's why he will win. Obama more and more seems like he's grasping for the best "answer" instead of telling us how he would lead.
O.K. So, if I understand your criticism of Obama's style, you are then making a direct case for a closed minded dolt who leaps to the first position he encounters and then sticks with it, without giving any depth as to how he came to conclude his reasoning is sound? McCain's supporters can go 'ga-ga' over his firm, strong beliefs until the cows come home, but I think I'll pass on having another 'decider' give absolute answers to policy matters requiring nuance and reflection; not one time did McCain even give a clue how he arrived to his positions, and for good reasons; since, McCain's record surely differs from the black v. white answers that his followers so love to cherish.
McCain has changed his positions from conservatism, back to conservatism, from conservatism and then back again, and you have the unmitigated gall to describe McCain as a leader who believes in something. Good grief!!
You sound like a 5th grader!
You have to actually find a position before you can stick with it. Obama can't even get to that point. Whether you like it or not Presidents have to make decisions. We vote for how we think they will come to those decisions based on their values. I know where McCain stands on almost everything. You probably thought you knew where Obama stood too, until he changed all of his positions. You can gloss over it all you want, but everyone, libs included, know that that stammering, rambling style is going to flop in the debates. Oh, by the way, hurling childish insults is a sign of immaturity
I thought O did well it seemed to me he was actually thinking instead of repeating talking points . But according to some he should have just gave simple answers since when has abortion and religion been simple man has been struggling with religion for years . But yeah ok life begins at conception how the #$@% would I now when life begins I agree with O that is above my paygrade . Looking at the forum the other night I was thinking that I supported O in his decision not to attend the Black State Of The Union he had to address the country as a whole but since hes been to AIPAC now this . Why not attend the union hes even been on Fixed news . At this point I just dont see the difference .
I thought Obama did a good job. It was great to see a presidential candidate being
thoughtful--that's a nice change! He's a great listener, too. I was impressed.
McCain, meanwhile, was just spouting out talking points. He did a fine job, but
it was a campaign speech. Not very insightful.
Imagine having to come from vacation in Hawaii and having to talk before a bunch of evangelist. What a drag. Anyway, I did not see the broadcast. I turned it on briefly and saw the audience and yuck, turned on something - anything else..
I heard a playback of the answers to the Supreme Court nominees question..
Really doesn't matter what else was said. That's it in a nutshell about the difference between these two. All the rest was BS.
Nuanced??? You've got to be kidding!
It is a word used by Democrats to explain why a candidate can NOT communicate a positon.
Face reality.
No. Obviously it is you who is kidding. Take for example the question on evil. It was a multi-part question: Does evil exist, if so where, if so, do we ignore it, contain it, or defeat it. Obama gave a nuanced answer: It exists; it exists in places like Darfur and parents who abuse their children, and we need to confront it and confront it with humility because much evil has been perpetuated in the name of confronting evil. I think that's a pretty clear position: Evil exists, should be confronted, gotta watch out for how we do it otherwise, we're working with it instead of against it. Nuanced answer/Clear position.
Your post proves my point. His position is as unclear as your explanation of his answer. It is apparently above both of your paygrades to answer a) evil exists and b) we must defeat it.
Good luck in the future with your "nuance".
The real problem is not this 'proto-debate' at Saddleback. The real problem is that McCain performed so well. The thinking that McCain was a Bob Dole like character that would be crushed in the fall debates went up in smoke on this night. McCain, simply, cleaned Obama's clock and his supporters are in a state of shock as his poll advantage vanishes.
MAC IS BACK
The problem was and remains...
John McCain won't have that opportunity again.
Kudos to Rick Warren for helping John McCain shore up his Evangelical base, in the right setting and context.
Kudos to Rick Warren for gaming the MSM and American people who are not Evangelicals. We're used to it having survived the Bush/Cheney error.
Ever heard of blowback?
I find it amusing that the candidate who showed the crowd himself as he really is: a thoughtful, insightful, faithful person is the one who has been judged to have done poorly because he didn't give the crowd what they wanted, which apparently was nothing - nothing of substance, anyway.
It has nothing to do with the crowd spectators. It has everything to do with the real audience (tv viewers) who found Obama to be completely void of clarity.
I'm not being snarky here - I'm just seeking understanding: Can you give some examples?
Why no mention of the fact that Mc'Cain was pre-coached on all the questions and was requesting to "go back" to topics that were not asked?
Right, that was so obvious, when McCain referenced questions that had not yet been asked.
Which questions? Can you list them?
We have heard the excuses. We have watch and heard liberal pundits say how McCain must have cheated, because he had direct answers for the questions. Please stop. It makes you, and in general, democrats and Obama supports sound like the "take your ball and go home" crowd.
Obama did not do well. Period. Move on. Even if you took everything McCain said out of the discussion, Obama still does not sound up to the game. Be it because he was coming back from vacation, he just wasn't comfortable in front of that particular audience, or that bean burrito he had for lunch was making him uncomfortable, it doesn't matter. Please, for the sake of moving on with the conversation and putting the event behind all of us, talk about something that matters, like who he may select for VP.
Mark, I'm glad you were there at Saddleback, but I found the whole affair to be sordid. The Saddleback crowd was fairly rude in their partisanship, and both Warren and McCain frequently fished for applause lines. Warren prefaced one question to Obama by claiming, "80% of the American people think faith-based institutions are more effective than government in providing.
After Warren told Obama he didn't want to hear his stump speech, he let McCain go right ahead with his! All McCain did was pander and give his talking points. That is NOT what this event was for!
yes, and i believe he mentioned that TWICE!
50fromohio
You nailed it!
Warren instructed Obama at the beginning to not give his stump speech--but to show us his soul. And he did--as he answered the questions in a way that gave insight into his philosophy and his soul.
McCain did not receive the same instructions and used the forum to give his stump speech. And he got away with it. Maybe because he has no soul.
Exactly! Unlike the author of this article, I wasn't convinced at all of Warren's "being a referee of sorts" or "valiantly" trying to "hide his biases." Gimmee a a break.
I AGREE 100% WARREN FAKE OBAMA OUT. I COULDN'T BELIEVE THAT A PASTOR WOULD BE BIAS TOWARD SOMEONE WHO TRUSTED HIM TO BE FAIR AND TREAT THEM WITH RESPECT BOTH MEN NOT JUST ONE. I DISAGREE OBAMA WAS DOING WHAT WARREN ASK OF HIM NO STUMP SPEECH AND NO PANDER NO TALKING POINTS TO THE CHURCH MEMBERS WHICH IS WHAT HE DID. THE EVENT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE ABOUT THEIR FAITH AND RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. NO OBAMA WASN'T OFF HIS GAME NO HIS VACATION DIDN'T NOTHING TO KEEP FROM DOING WHAT DOES . HE IS USED TO BEING IN CHURCH AND TALK ING AND RELATING TO PEOPLE THAT IS WHAT HE DOES .THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEBATES. GOP WILL TAKE ANY THING TO BUILD UP THEIR HOPES LET ME SAY THIS NO NEED TO WORRY THE DEBATES WILL BE HERE SOON ENOUGH OBAMA AND MCCAIN BE IN THE SAME ROOM AGAIN OLD BOY BETTER STUDIE UP WARREN AND OTHER WON'T BE THERE TO HOLD HIM ON STAGE . I LOST RESPECT FOR THAT LOSER WARREN LETTING MCCAIN GO AND GO ABOUT NOTHING AND HE GOT AWAY WITH PANDERING TO THE GOP AND THE RIGHT . I HOPE OBAMA HAVE LEARNED NOT TO TRUST EVERY ONE TO BE FAIR. TAKE CARE OBAMA YOU ARE A CLASSY MAN WHO WE RESPECT BECAUSE YOU ARE A REAL MAN OF FAITH .WE CAN'T WAIT UNTIL NOV WE ARE GETTING THE VOTE OUT AND REG PEOPLE EVERYDAY IN EVERY STATE. WE BELIEVE
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
