Obama had to go, even knowing he'd get sandbagged (not saying he did know).

Warren's performance and his comments since have let us know that for the moment he has two purposes in his purpose-driven life 1) get attention, 2) make sure that a Republican stays in the Oval Office.

But what really gets my knickers in a twist is thatt Pastor Rick seems to be proud of himself.

When I watched RW on Hardball just before the Forum, under the television lights, his hair, eyebrows and beard all seemed to be dyed the same color (later, that wasn't as clear.)

I know that is an insanely shallow thing to observe, but observe it I did. Maybe I'm wrong, but my point is, he seemed obscenely camera ready. And I had never really seen him before, outside the occasional snapshot.

Whatever is true about his TV persona (and believe me, I love all the makeup!) I was blown away by how uncommonly ... happy with himself he appeared to be.

I guess I want better judgment from Obama, but...maybe it's too much to ask.

I just read your Saddlebagged post over at Salon and I simply have to agree that Warren comes out of this all smarmy and smelly. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt before the encounter based on some cursory reading about how progressive he's been on some issues, but those assessments belie what his true nature is. His candle is out in the open and it does indeed shed light on him. I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

I think Dave Barry can impart some truth here, more than what I expect from Warren:

"If there really is a God who created the entire universe with all of its glories, and He decides to deliver a message to humanity, He will not use, as His messenger, a person on cable TV with a bad hairstyle."

Joan, so glad you haven't finished obsessing over this because I sure haven't.

I just spent the last hour watching Rick Warren on Larry King. He was incredibly smooth--smooth in that creepy way--the smoothness of a sociopath...the flatness of a motive not revealed.

I felt exactly the same way when I read the "sour grapes" line. Ohhhh...just a little bit catty on his part (I'm being catty too but I'm not the pastor of a megachurch).

As Larry King was asking him questions tonight, he was overly milquetoast (I love this word). I couldn't help myself, but I thought of the words of Jesus, "Either be hot or cold, but if you are lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth".

Rick Warren couldn't have been more of a politician than if he was a politician (which I guess he is being the leader of a 20,000 member church).

Speaking of large figures, Warren only takes 10% of this income. Do the math. His book has grossed a minimum of over 20 million dollars. He has another one coming out in December (the TRUE reason for Christmas--thank God--I've been wondering what it was.)

Who knows what his sermon salary is, not to mention his public speaking gigs.

I don't have a problem with him getting rich off his books and speaking engagements. This is America and people do it all the time. It's just the slippery slope impression that he's living off of 10% of his salary that sounds so...humble and is ultimately so misleading.

What is it about us Irish Catholic brainwashed girls turned rough around the edges feisty women? I'm appreciating my upbringing more than ever.

I didn't watch this program but of course I've seen clips of it and the aftermath on Nightline. Based upon what I did see, I'd have to agree with John on this. I think he really wasn't too concerned in what Obama had to say because his mind was made up.
@ Marytkelly, I think a lot of megapastors get "love" offerings instead of a paid salary from the church. The downside to that is many members give cash and you know what that means, nobody has to know about it. I am not suggesting that this is the case of Mr. Warren but it does happen. He may be living off 10% of his income. He may be very rich. (You did see that part when he asked the candidates about how much money does it take to be considered "rich?" Obama commented back about his book sales. Classic moment)

Ms Walsh, I realize I'm going to make myself pretty unpopular here, but I think you're wrong about Senator Obama's judgment, and about Rev. Warren, too.

I'm not an evangelical Christian, but I thought Rev. Warren was pretty darned respectful of both candidates. In fact, I think he went out of his way to show people that he liked and respected Sen. Obama, in particular. Good for him, I thought.

Was he happy with himself? Sure. I would have been, had I been in his shoes.

I thought he did a fine job of moderating the event. And don't you think he radiated a certain good will? Look, I agree with defending choice, in spite of the difficulty of that issue. I'm in favour of gay marriage, because I believe that love is ultimately more important than certain traditions. But when an American evangelical leader takes some big steps toward the centre - and tries very hard to be nice in doing so... shouldn't you be offering at least a grudging acknowledgment?

As to your comment, "I guess I want better judgment from Obama, but...maybe it's too much to ask.".... I can't tell you how much I disagree. Sen. Obama gained much credit in many people's eyes because he had the courage to speak very plainly to people who are not thought to be his core constituency. More importantly, he made it clear that he's running to lead all Americans, not just those who are among his most ardent fans. I thought that was classy and absolutely the right thing to do, for a real American leader.

I don't think it's right to reduce the measurement of "judgment" to decisions that best serve the "horse race" of the election.

Nothing bad happened here, with the Saddleback Civil Forum. In fact, a few good things happened here. I really don't understand why you and many of the commenters are so upset. I have no idea who's going to win in November. But there have been a number of reasons for optimism during this election. I think we can risk dialing back the angry partisanship just a notch or two. Am I off base?

Warmest regards,

Cam Battley

PS: Please don't kick me off Open Salon. I like it here!

I could not bring myself to watch or listen to Rick Warren's show, wondering how he managed it. It is no wonder that he looked pleased with himself. Not exactly, "The first will be last ...". The clip I have seen most often was a repeat that I appreciate hearing from Senator Obama, that certain determinations "are above my pay grade." The implication that we should not presume to judge the difficult decisions that other have to make in their lives works on a world scale as well as a personal one, in my opinion.

I just can't help but think that RW believes his own PR. I can't help but notice that he seems to have a relationship with gluttony, which I would imagine is a kind of failure for someone bent on being a leader and so "camera ready."

People who want to tell other people how to "be" are always projecting information about themselves unintentionally. I couldn't help but wonder what his sense of style and presentation was saying about him. His "good ole boy" nature is not unlike that of men I've known all my life. There were about two kinds of them: the paternalistic misogynists & misanthropes who believe they are taking care of things for you, thus, they could feel good about themselves and superior; and the plain ole misogynists misanthropes, who did all that stuff so they could take advantage of you and then use that fact as a justification for why they should be more entitled to the good things in life than those whom they have taken just advantage of. They both arrive at the same conclusion of entitlement and privilege. Yeah, both "do good" but it was never without an apparent agenda.

Rick Warren is one of those guys. Sure he's done a lot of useful things, but his agenda is showing all over him like flies on a warm watermelon.

I missed the entire TV episode, but have watched the clips. I commented to my husband (two days ago) that I believed that McCain had the questions ahead of time. Something about his not pausing at all, not even to pretend to think about what he was going to say, even if it was scripted, was a sure tipoff to me -- he isn't that smooth without a teleprompter.

I am not surprised to learn today that McCain was not sequestered during Obama's responses but in a car on his way to the church. DUH -- if you are going to cheat, do you have to be so obvious about it?

He had me on the first non-stutter...
(Posted on your other thread "Obama in the Lion's Den 8-18-2008 evening)

******************************
From your Salon Comments:

1) The fifth commandment is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". How can anyone actually write in your comments section that lying is not breaking one of the Commandments?!

2) One commenter wrote about McCain's "Charlie Manson eyes" going blinkety-blink all the time. That makes me wonder if McCain was also wearing a feed? I suppose since his "my friends" tic was on overdrive that he wasn't completely scripted.

I have no doubt that he knew the questions, however. I knew it in my heart before I ever heard it on CNN. It is a travesty that I hope works against McCain, as it should.

Not a true Christian! Who was it wrote about the scottish fallacy?

No true scotman fallacy.

Sorry about writing the 5th commandment above, that is not the correct one. Still, bearing false witness is lying.

The GOP noise machine is alive and well with respect to shouting about this forum. In a new push mail from the Republican National Committee, I'm informed that

> The reviews are in from Saturday's Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, moderated by Pastor Rick Warren. The critics agree

Those critics, of course, would be Republicans critical of Obama

> - John McCain's straight talk emerged as the big winner of the night. Straight Talk at Saddleback

Or maybe "straitjacket at bareback." Let's see: Fundy right-wing organizer and audience, check. Loaded questions, check. McCain team apparently spies on Obama answers in advance, check. Blast faxes to wingnut talk shows the next morning, check. Yup, real straight talk.

> After watching both candidates answer the same set of questions, it's become clear why Senator Barack Obama has run away from debating John McCain and refused joint town hall meetings.

I'll say! It was obvious Obama would be attacked instead of applauded for walking into the lion's den, if only by the (ironic, isn't it?) Christian lion handlers. But this, too, begs the question. Would McCain agree to join Obama at a forum run by, say, the ACLU or Acorn or the Environmental Defense Fund? And if he didn't, would that mean he's chicken?

> Senator Obama dodged answering the toughest questions.

"Dodged" means he gave thoughtful, nuanced answers and not vetted, canned statements from the GOP think tank. No examples in the push mail, of course; the GOP spinmeisters ah, er dodged that obligation.

> ... The bottom line is that John McCain will put our country before his own self interest.

And here we come to the most impertinent, inflammatory line of the pushmail. By implication, Obama's run for the presidency is all a matter of self interest. Whereas McCain has no self interest in mind whatsoever in HIS candidacy. Right. Uh-huh. Sure thing. But beyond that, this is one stupid comment. Obviously, running for the presidency clearly involves SOME self interest.

As for who is most self interested, the Dubya administration was almost entirely about self interest and yet we're expected to believe McCain's largely coterminous views would not benefit his party, lobbyist buddies or family whatsoever. But second, what the hell does self interest have to do with getting us out of Iraq, solving the energy crunch, forestalling climate change and saving the economy? Does Sen. Obama pledge to do these things to somehow feather his nest? I guess so, to the extent that he's responding to popular will in hopes of winning the election. Better that he go down saying what he really thinks: That's McCain's stated strategy, but of course we're still awaiting its deployment.

Excuse me while I go barf.

I don't believe anyone mentioned that when McCain spoke, Warren looked at at the candidate as if he were the Second Coming incarnate---eyes shining non-stop with a worshipful light -- mesmerized by the wonderment of McCain's words and presence. On the other hand when Obama spoke, Warren was in motion, as if strict attention need not be paid to a presidential wannabe of such dubious credentials. He was pleasant, but patronizing and stuffed to the brim with self-regard .

I have a question regarding the validity of an event such as this: if a "socialist" orgainzation, or a "communist" organization requested such an appearance from these candidates, does ANYONE think they would be respected?

I certainly do not think they would.

Can ANYBODY answer this question: why does this organization receive more respect than those others would?