You mean kinda like W? (who was wrong on what he was convinced about, but he was convinced dammit.)

I rest my case.

the rednecks will vote for a "tough" guy like McBush every time, over an intellectual, thoughtful man of color, and so "my friends", we see another lost opportunity ,as the american republic (empire?) sadly goes down the drain, destroyed by the evil military-industrial complex (plus OIL).

it's all over, "my friends", McAge will carry the election, helped of course by the evil GOP-owned voting machines.

one last cheer for democracy as it fades away into lost hopes and dreams...

I must admit Obama can talk with the best of them. A year ago he was sitting on the front row at an all black church listening to Rev. Wright spewing hate and racist remarks, while the congregation was saying amen, and he was a long standing member and supposedly a close friend of the Reverand. Now Obama has thrown the close friend under the bus and is quoting scripture in a white church, and that's called competing for evangelical votes, amazing, amazing, and more amazing. Get real.

As Americans, we think we're very sophisticated voters and have such control over our democracy. The truth is that we get rolled with buzzwords and brainwashed with the echo-chamber: the same talking heads repeating each other's received wisdom.

There was an implied criticism in Obama's performance, viz. he was more "nuanced". Nuanced answers require thinking on the part of the listener, therefore McCain won because his answers were simplistic stump speeches, already honed and geared to the audience. They were not answers to the questions posed, nor thoughtful answers in a conversational dialogue. The audience (congregation?) should have been advised to applaud only at the end of each interview. They were overtly partisan (no secret), but they should have been forced to behave in an evenhanded manner even if they didn't feel like it.

It was an invitation that Obama couldn't have passed up even though it had its hazards. The point one may take from this encounter is that McCain is omniscient, because he has all the answers, right at his fingertips: he doesn't even have to think!

Who won? Rick Warren & McCain. People like to have their prejudices reinforced. It takes work to think.

OBAMA is drawing straws out of desaration for additional votes in a race he will not win. If the American public doesn't see throught his false rhetoric, they'll deserve what they get, and regret it later. This man has no recorded acccomplishments because he hasn't done anything.Why would someone of this stature be nominated as a presidental candidate? The blind follow the blind, and both will fall into the water. Did the American voter know of OBAMA's plight to poverty stricken 3rd world countries financed by the middle class? Of course not, he has hidden this from view since the financing of this nearly passed bill by OBAMA has passed the HOUSE awaiting approval from the Senate. What the tax payer doesn't know is that if this does pass and becomes a bill, a family of 3 will be taxed $2,000.00 per person for a total of $6,000.00 for the upgrade of 3rd World country, poverty stricken,welfare recipients. WAKE UP, AMERICA! Do you really want this man leading you into a recession? Chipsan2

Why is it that when conservatives give their opinion on an issue such as gay marriage, abortion, etc. we're sticking our noses where they don't belong? Libs aren't sticking their noses in when laws are made in their favor? Redefining marriage for the first time in history is not sticking your nose where it doesn't belong? Just Libs should decide on abortion? Honestly, a baby in the womb at 8 1/2 months is not worthy of human rights, it's just a piece of tissue, and to deny a woman the "right" to terminate is denying her privacy? Pa-leeze.

For a publication so interested in taking the long road towards another Democratic Supermajority you kids sure like to pretend you're deaf and dumb with this guy a lot.

I'd rather not have God in politics at all, that is true. We're a secular nation, he just shouldn't be there. But how else is Obama to be expected to address the problem of Evangelicals as an arbitrarily unified voting bloc? We can't wish them away, and if we are truly free thinking Americans, that is the last thing we ought to do. Variegation in opinion is the only way for a progressive nation to stay progressive, and that includes letting in the folks who talk to Jesus.

Engagement and even, yes, mollification, is exactly what we need.

What I would have liked to see instead of another chance to needle Obama for the impression of what he's doing instead of what he is actually doing is an examination of the potentially electorate-shifting promise of a liberal Candidate who is able to fit Christianity into his life and still use it to justify opinions and political stances the left would praise in any secular context.

Since it's the only direct example used by the fair-minded author to support his point, I direct you to Obama's admonition of the Bush administration for allowing abortions to continue. While this is implicitly an example of Obama treading dangerous ground, it's explicitly an example of this very skill for vote-poaching in practice. To actually assume Obama is allowing the implication to be made that he would restrict the ability of abortions to be received is willfully myopic. How might a liberally minded religious President who would prefer to prevent as many abortions as possible instead of rhetorically decrying them but doing nothing act? Could he, possibly, give the full weight of his office to the efforts of Planned Parenthood and other governmental agencies to preach the value of birth control practices and cheap, easy access to the same?

It's a one two punch at the GOP, it's a brilliant move, and it's clearly what a candidate like Obama would espouse.

But, yes, please sir, may I have another attempt to try and remind us that even good liberals should view Obama with a sense of Not One Of Us and judge his campaign through wary eyes.