Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Obama, McCain, and Rick Warren
August 19, 2008
Otherwise detained when it was first broadcast, I only got around to watching the Saddleback Church encounter (video; transcript) last night.
Warren did a very nice job. I hope the network moderators were taking notes. No self-aggrandizement, no moronic gimmicks, no ceaseless quest for the gotcha moment. He asked good, searching questions in a spirit of urgent reflection, curiosity and goodwill. So it can be done.
I agree with the take of most commentators: Obama came across as thoughtful–but to a fault. His answers were too long and inconclusive. He came over as smart, interesting and admirable, but indecisive. McCain was just the opposite: direct, peremptory, energetic, impatient to take charge.
If this event were all I knew of the two candidates, I would prefer Obama, though with reservations. McCain crossed the line between concise and simplistic (not to say bombastic) too many times. Obama’s answer to the question, “At what point does a baby have human rights?”–”That’s above my pay grade”–was an evasion. (What would I have said, I wondered? Words to the same effect. Luckily I’m not running for president.) Then it got worse, as he talked about “theological perspective”, “scientific perspective” and (eek) “specificity”. Oh dear. McCain’s immediate answer, “At the moment of conception,” was as crisp and clear as you could wish. Problem is, that answer has implications which I am certain that McCain, consistent though his record may be on abortion, is not willing to confront. If it’s a choice between (a) handwringing over specificity and (b) dogmatic certainty on an issue that (in my view) does not support it, I’ll reluctantly take (a).
As for the politics, surely McCain won. Much to my surprise, given some of his recent outings, he seemed much more presidential. So I agree with David Gergen:
Heading into the candidates’ appearances on Saturday night at Saddleback Church, the conventional wisdom in politics was Barack Obama should have a clear upper hand in any joint appearance with John McCain — one the young, eloquent, cool, charismatic dude who can charm birds from the trees, the other the meandering, sometimes bumbling, old fellow who can barely distinguish Sunnis from Shiias.
Well, kiss that myth goodbye.
McCain came roaring out of the gate from the first question and was a commanding figure throughout the night as he spoke directly and often movingly about his past and the country’s future. By contrast, Obama was often searching for words and while far more thoughtful, was also less emotionally connective with his audience.
Also see this piece by Dick Polman at the Philadelphia Inquirer:
The same stylistic gap - cerebral versus visceral - was evident at several other points in the forum, again to Obama’s potential disadvantage. Such as the exchanges about the nature of evil.
Warren asked Obama: “Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?”
Obama’s response: “Evil does exist. I mean, we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil in parents have viciously abused their children and I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world…Now, the one thing that I think is very important for us is to have humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, but, you know, a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil…And I think one thing that’s very important is having some humility in recognizing that, you know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn’t always mean that we’re going to be doing good…”
One hour later, Warren asked McCain the same question about evil and what we should do about it. McCain’s response began this way:
“Defeat it.”
Jim Fallows, though, makes a very good point. This was a pair of interviews, not a debate. Who knows where the discussion of human rights and abortion would have gone if the candidates had been able to challenge each other–if Obama had been able to test McCain on the implications of his certainties, and say, “Is it really so simple?”. Perhaps that would have made things even worse for Obama, or perhaps not. We shall see. The approaching presidential debates will be even more important that I had supposed. Shame they will be back in the hands of the TV professionals.
i agree with Clive Crook, even though I did not watch much of either of these supremely dull interviews, preferring to take in the badminton and Graeco-Roman wrestling at the Olympics, which are turning out to be far more exciting (and important) than anything going on in this campaign, which is setting its own world record for boredom, trivia, and irrelevance.
Back to the archery competion.
Posted by: algasema | August 19th, 2008 at 2:58 pm | Report this commentLike Obama, you are being evasive. The simple truth is that McCain won.
A president does not need to be thoughtful, in fact that may even be a fault (witness the case of Jimmy Carter). A president’s aides need to be thoughtful, but a president himself needs to be a decisive figure with strong INTUITION and instinctive leadership qualities.
Posted by: RCS | August 19th, 2008 at 4:35 pm | Report this commentAs I mentioned, RCS, I said that I agree with Clive Crook, who made the same point, as I understand it. There is no doubt that McCain won. What is evasive about that?
However, it it also worth asking what Obama was doing speaking in front a white evangelical church in the first place. No matter how fair the moderator, this is a partisan Republican forum.
When McCain and Obama do a repeat performance at a well known black church (not Trinity United), that might be worth paying attention to.
Posted by: algasema | August 19th, 2008 at 8:56 pm | Report this commentBarack and McCain were speaking in front of a Christian audience. To that effect, Barack spoke as a Christian while McCain spoke as a politician. Barack spoke from the heart and since Christians are more Heart than Head (McCain), Barack would or should have won over more of the Christians in the audience.
Posted by: Angellight | August 19th, 2008 at 9:23 pm | Report this commentPoor Mr. Crook. His job requires him to listen to the tripe of these kinds of “interviews”. Admittedly, based on his comments, better than being forced to listen to the so-called “debates” with the obnoxious, irrelevant questioning by vastly overpaid TV journalists, as Mr. Crook notes - Chris Matthews, a perfect case in point, is blathering from the TV as I write this in another room (I thought the Olympics were supposed to be broadcast on MSNBC now) - but still not worth watching or listening to.
RCS’ comments are classic nonsense: “The simple truth is that McCain won. A president does not need to be thoughtful, in fact that may even be a fault (witness the case of Jimmy Carter).”
I am sure RCS also considers Ronald Reagan to be a towering political figure, rather than the completely empty suit that his closest advisors considered him to be.
Not thoughtful? Right you are: John McCain “shoots from the hip” with nary a single thought given to facts or reality. Just what the world needs, a senile version of George Bush as the next USA President.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | August 20th, 2008 at 12:41 am | Report this commentWendell Murray–Where have you been? Hiding under a rock somewhere? Ronald Reagan WAS a towering political figure–even those who hated him in the liberal intelligentsia recognize that, though it drives them up the wall. Since the end of the Eisenhower administration,in 1960, the entire world has produced only 4 world-class leaders: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Anwar Sadat, and Pope John Paul II.
Wendell, don’t let any political prejudices you may have blind you to reality.
And remember this: Clark Clifford, who was a very smug man who thought highly of himself, a “golden boy” and one of the prizes of the Democrat Party, an advisor to presidents and a U.S. Secretary of Defense, once described Ronald Reagan as an “amiable dunce.” Clifford, as we know, ended his career in disgrace, involved in criminality. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, had many achievements, both in the United States and on the world stage. Some of these, including recognizing the Soviet Union for what it was–”an evil empire”–and facing it down, rank extremely high in achievement.
And remember how many people went to Washington when Ronald Reagan was lying in state? The people of the U.S. really loved him. You didn’t see this with Johnson, Nixon, or Ford, nor will you see it with Clinton or the two Bushes.
I did not think anyone this day and time, even if they hated Ronald Reagan, would still accuse him of being an “empty suit.” The reality, for which there is ample evidence, is far different. His aministration was one of high accomplishment.
Posted by: Terry Walker | August 20th, 2008 at 1:25 am | Report this commentI agree, Wendell Murray. A senile version of George Bush is exactly what John McCain is. But Reagan and Bush were elected because they appeared to stand for something, however synthetic, manufactured and mendacious, whereas Democrats like Carter, Dukakis and Kerry did not seem to stand for anything.
Obama should take the megachurch fiasco as a warning signal. He will be in very big trouble if he doesn’t. He also needs to hit back much harder at the slime attacks against his character, patriotism and race by people like Corsi, who epitomizes the worst (and most successful) kind of sewer politics.
Obama may wind up once again proving the truth of old saying by Leo Durocher that nice guys finish last.
Posted by: algasema | August 20th, 2008 at 1:37 am | Report this comment“of the old saying”. Another algasema
Posted by: algasema | August 20th, 2008 at 1:39 am | Report this commentI also admire Terry Walker’s sense of humor. Reagan, a great leader? He had exactly two accomplishments on the world stage: Granada and Iran-Contra.
But he was good for big business and the military -industrial complex. And he did redistribute a lot of wealth upward, just as GWB is doing. Hence the phony hagiography by the right.
Posted by: algasema | August 20th, 2008 at 1:46 am | Report this commentThank you, Terry Walker, I was about to reply to that one myself. Yes, Reagan was a great president despite not having been cerebral. As I said: decisiveness, intuition and leadership. Those are the qualities that make a great president. Thoughtfulness is superfluous, it is the remit of the NSC and others.
algasema, I meant Clive Crook was being evasive, I was not referring to your own comment.
Posted by: RCS | August 20th, 2008 at 1:53 am | Report this commentTerry Walker: You are absolutely right - we inhabit different worlds. Mine happens to be reality, however.
“And remember how many people went to Washington when Ronald Reagan was lying in state?”
Read in the Wall Street Journal shortly after this dreadful event was staged of how it had been carefully planned for years - and obviously abetted by the current Bush Administration for its own political purposes - then orchestrated by Michael Deaver - convicted felon by the way - the long-time media constructor of the Reagan false public image and other paid keepers of the faith.
The extreme right-wing - in the USA at least - has set the policy debate with the connivance of mainstream - and not so mainstream - media since the Reagan era. The mythology of Reagan is all part of the fiction that the extreme right-wing erects to confuse the public and cover its dirty deeds. With a shift at least back to a closer approximation of reality and closer to the political center with the election of Senator Obama and a solid Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, the myth of Reagan will quickly fade. This relentlessly promoted image of him is a classic Potemkin village. It is analogous to the hagiography of Lenin in the former USSR, who however in fact was a towering political figure, although certainly not deserving of hagiography.
RCS I am sorry to inform you that there is no substitute for knowledge, intelligence and good judgment based on living through adversity in any role performed by any person anywhere. Decisiveness without knowledge or judgment leads to disaster - no better example that the repeated blunders of President Bush. Valuable intuition is a function of experience and the more varied and trying the experience in at least certain ways, the better. Intuition as a substitute for knowledge, intelligence and varied experience is inevitably wrong. “Leadership” is a quality that exists because of followers. It otherwise does not exist. Natural leaders are those who have natural followers. Not “pretend” followers who are either swayed by the intentional misrepresentations by those who pretend to be leaders, but who actually only desire power for personal gain, or are manufactured for the purpose. Constant reference to so-called “leadership” by politicians or others is akin to the saying that patriotism is last refuge of the scoundrel.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | August 20th, 2008 at 3:12 am | Report this commentWendell Murray, intuition is not chiefly a function of experience but a gift that some have and some do not. I agree that deciveness without judgement leads to disaster, however “judgement” is the same as “intuition”, so my three qualities for a successful president already covered that.
“…those who pretend to be leaders, but who actually only desire power for personal gain” is spot on as a description of Obama. As algasema rightly remarks: Carter, Dukakis and Kerry did not stand for anything and therefore failed. But I would disagree regarding Carter, he did stand for high ideals in his own muddled way. I would instead add Obama to that list. He stands for nothing but showmanship and a desire for personal success.
Policy: anyone can formulate intricate policy proposals, or rather have experts formulate such for them. It would be more meaningful to ask what is a candidate’s ability to implement his ideas. For example, Carter was not skilled at implementation. The ability to implement policy is a function of both deciveness and leadership. Obama lacks deciseveness, his constant equivocation and pervarication point to a muddled presidency.
Posted by: RCS | August 20th, 2008 at 7:04 am | Report this commentSome observers have applied President Reagan’s “empty-suitism” to Senator Obama. President Reagan was a leader because he had followers - based on a phony image entirely, but nonetheless true.
The enthusiasm for Senator Obama among his supporters is the same. Whether he is or will turn out to be an empty suit will depend on whether he accomplishes anything positive if he is elected President.
I have no particular opinion on Governor Dukakis or Senator Kerry, although both were smeared reprehensibly by the respective President Bush campaigns. The attitude such as yours seems to reflect the lingering effect of those smears.
President Carter is another matter, but not one I comment on here.
Decisiveness is a quality like “toughness” that generally is presented as an excuse for lack of knowledge, intelligence and judgment when someone acts foolishly and precipitously. In fact many effective managers are indecisive - rightly so. They let those who know more and who are closer to reality, but whose judgment the ultimate decision-maker trusts, make most decisions.
Regarding intuition we are all amalgams of biology and experience. I agree that intuition has a biological basis, but positive intuition, i.e. that leads to positive results, is determined by good judgment which is a function of many factors, not least wide and varied experience in life, native intelligence and knowledge gained from those who know more than we do about any given topic.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | August 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm | Report this commentClive Crook: ‘I write mainly about the intersection of politics and economics’.
So what are you doing commenting on a political interview hosted by a religious figure?
Being a Harvard scholar, I am sure Obama will learn from this event. He and his advisors will disect it and come out swinging in the next ‘meeting of the minds’. Should be fun for all.
Posted by: Gregg Maloof | August 20th, 2008 at 1:09 pm | Report this commentWendell Murray– Well, you have definitely caught me out! You have guessed that I, along with the American mainstream media, are all part of that vast, right-wing conspiracy that Hillary Clinton, and apparently the rest of you who live in the world of “reality” so readily recognize. We in this right-wing conspiracy have worked so hard to confuse the public and cover our dirty deeds. It only SEEMS that Ronald Reagan faced down the Soviet Union when all the Realpolitik folk wanted to concede forever a sphere of influence to that wonderful country and its rulers; it only SEEMS that Ronald Reagan was responsible for reigning in Libya as a sponsor of world terrorism; it only SEEMS that Ronald Reagan helped the people of Grenada escape a Castro-style dictatorship and tossed out the Cuban military which were occupying that country in all but name; it only SEEMS that Ronald Reagan, though unsuccessful because of the liberals in the U.S. Congress, who always seem to enamored by left-wing thugs, did what he could to oppose the Castro (now there is a great civil libertarian for you) wannabe Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And obviously the American people were manipulated–manipulated, I say!–into loving Ronald Reagan as they did.
Yes, indeed, Wendell, the world of reality in which you live–well, surely its climate is not affected by any political orientation you may have.
Now, we members of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and our evil mainstream media cohorts
Posted by: Terry Walker | August 20th, 2008 at 3:00 pm | Report this comment(I’m sure you must have been talking about the ultra-conservative New York Times, or the Washington Post, or Time Magazine, or CNN,or MSNBC, and others of their ilk–known conservatives, all), are going to have to reformulate our game plan, since you have pointed out how we all work together to manipulate the public.
No matter how fair or open it may have appeared, isn’t there something inappropriate and off-putting about presidential candidates being questioned in a church, a fundamentalist one at that?
Of course there is. It not only goes against the traditions of separation of church and state, but it set a bad precedent for the future.
What on earth is the point of a question, for example, about abortion? The President of the United States has absolutely no authority on such matters.
Of course, those who don’t think about what they are saying will respond that the future appointment of Supreme Court judges matters.
But such appointments are almost never issue-specific, nor should they be. Issue-specific appointments would quickly debase the institution and would represent more of a threat than the one perceived over the particular issue.
The question, as many others were here, is irrelevant.
This event takes on another dimension of oddness when you consider the fact that McCain is well known for being about as religious as Elmer Gantry.
If you put a Bible in his hand, I wouldn’t be surprised, in the words of the great Charles Laughton in “Witness for the Prosecution,” if the testament were to leap from his hand.
Anyway, this event only further highlights the close-to-meaningless nature of American presidential elections. Real issues are almost never dealt with. Access and influence are purchased by contributions. And the great imperial establishment goes on as though there were no vote.
The only truly significant thing that happens are the thousands of appointments, plum jobs wanted by small armies of trough-seekers on both sides, wanting them to shape resumes for still more plum jobs with corporations and lobbies.
And, yes, it certainly wasn’t a debate, but when was the last time American candidates actually debated? Lincoln-Douglas.
The regular ritual now of TV debates is little more than a dual press conference, not entirely different in content and difficulty from what one might have seen from Brezhnev and Kosygin. No debate ever. A few one-liners thrown in now and then. Softball questions from establishment journalists.
A last note, McCain was (deliberately?) late. He had the potential advantage, which he was not supposed to have, of watching Obama’s answers. They were, after all, asked the same questions.
Whatever the case, a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | August 20th, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Report this commentYes, Terry Walker, and it only SEEMS that Ronald Reagan broke the law by secretly using Iran as an intermediary to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, whose people had been subject to American corporate-military domination for so long that Georgia would look as if it had no problem with Russia at all by comparison.
Posted by: algasema | August 20th, 2008 at 4:28 pm | Report this comment