I confess I did not see the event and, in any event, not being God-fearing meself, do not put too much stock into these church thingies.  But ... was this some sort of a race, an Olympic event, a debate event, to merit a "winner/loser" assessment.  I thought the point was for Rick Warren to have a "personal" conversation with Obama and McCain 'cause God wanted him to.  What's the point of handicapping people when the measurement criteria are nonexistent?  

This reminds of the talk about "victory" in Iraq when we don't even know what the beast would look like if it started gnawing on our toes.

I honestly think it was a blowout for McCain.  Obama is smart to keep avoiding all those Townhall Debates that McCain has been asking for.   It is would be better strategy for Obama to stay tethered to the Teleprompter and avoid any off the cuff remarks.

I am shocked to see that the Christian Broadcast Network came out for the Republican.

I think your calculus is right. Obama did very well in a crowd that was openly pro-McCain, and even managed to exchange a high-five with Warren at one point. That will make a nice picture. His answers were pretty thoughtful, I thought.

McCain was energetic, but he was pandering at full speed as well. With regard to education, he came out for firing bad teachers, granting merit pay, supporting charter schools, supporting vouchers, and supporting homeschooling. He was for everything, because it all "works." He had no idea what he was talking about. I also noticed that he came against all four non-rightwing justices on the Supreme Court because they are "activist" and "legislate from the bench," unlike the restrained and reason right-wingers. That's read meat for evangelicals, but it's total BS. One last point, he suggested you have to make 5 million bucks a year to be considered rich. Wow. That was a big, big mistake.

McCain did project a lot of energy, though, and the crowd seemed to like him. Like Mike said, it would only be a story if he bombed.

To me, the forum showed that Obama actually thinks for himself, whereas John McCain just recites talking points and mentions Vietnam.

I don't know how the politics are going to shake out, but it was obvious tonight that one man is an intellectual lightweight.

Lucky for Obama, nobody paid any attention. Michael Phelps went 8 for 8, did ya hear?

McCain is the Manichean Candidate.  

All of his responses were meant to display his sound-bite, black and white world, the very kind of short-hand answers that a great many folks at Saddleback would appreciate.  This was a profoundly pro-McCain crowd, and his short, punchy, pre-digested nuggets of manly swagger were consumed with great relish.

Obama, on the other hand, actually showed that he spends some time thinking about issues, and attmpted to offer answers that weren't reduced to hit the attention spans of ADHD America.  What I found heartening was that some in the audience actually seemed to be listening to him.

In addition to this we have a new drinking game, one to cause the fortunes of Cindy McCain to skyrocket everytime her husbands speaks - Slam everytime McCain says, 'My friends.'  Good lord, you would be unconscious after three and a half minutes.

Of course, the second best new drinking game will be to count the number of posts before Tep weighs in with yet another reason for why Obama is a lightweight and that only Daddy McCain can save us from the Russian Bear.  

On substance Obama clearly won, at least if thoughtfulness and richness-of-content are criteria.

But if we're talking about "winning," what really matters is how well each candidate connected with "average" voters, even beyond the evangelicals. And I have a feeling that thoughtfulness and substantive richness are irrelevant here, if not downright counterproductive. Dana Bash may have captured what the average voter's reaction was when she said, in a mincing manner, that Obama's performance was "nuanced" (as if nuance was something you need to hold your nose around.) All in all, depressing.

Well, the audience here wasnt just the people in the church, nor even the evangelicals watching. The audience was all of the voters and reporters who were watching. To these voters, there was no "curve" to grade on.

I think McCain won. Period. Full stop. I hate to say it because I am a big Obama supporter, but Obama needs to do a lot better in the debates than he did tonight. And he better hope this doesnt cause McCain to get a fairly good bump.

It wasnt that Obama did poorly, its that McCain did very well. He was able to tell his stories, showed humor, and was able to bring the conversation back to current issues better than Obama.

sbzuck: You hit the nail on the head. McCain's humor really worked tonight (it contained none of the meanness or pettiness it often does) and his stories were rhetorically powerful. Yes, he was pandering big time. And, yes, he was being simplistic and mostly sticking to talking points. But, as someone who's not a big fan of his, even I can see that his style/approach seemed more engaging and effective (re. wooing voters) than Obama's.

I hope Obama gets some good coaching for the debates.

No, Noam, you do not have to grade on a curve.  Because, whoever the audience was in the church, the real audience-- the one that counts-- are the millions out in TV Land who were watching.

The point of these debates is to decide who is most credible as a president of the United States.  

Obama handled himself very well, as he always does.  He is an impressive man, thoughtful and intelligent.

McCain was more forthright and decisive.  Obama's roots in academia showed clearly.  McCain's roots in the military and a man used to making decisions in action showed just as clearly.

Obama has never been good at POLITICAL debates. He's too nuanced in his answers. His aides better do something or he'll get killed in the fall debates.

And yes, hemlock, when it comes to politics in general and presidential politics in particular, nuance is something you hold your nose around. It has killed many political careers. First you win the election (most voters don't have a college degree) and then you become nuanced.

One person's "nuance" ia another person's  "hemming and hawirng"

...Advantage Obama...

You'd figure out a way to say that even if he walked into dogshit.

...Obama handled himself very well, as he always does.  He is an impressive man, thoughtful and intelligent.

McCain was more forthright and decisive.  Obama's roots in academia showed clearly.  McCain's roots in the military and a man used to making decisions in action showed just as clearly...

Pretty fair minded view, I'd say. "Advantage ChanRobt."

Chan,

"McCain was more forthright and decisive.  Obama's roots in academia showed clearly.  McCain's roots in the military and a man used to making decisions in action showed just as clearly..."

It is easy to be decisive when your answers make no sense if actually implemented and your audience does not know this as well.  That is why nuance does not work, it actually shows that you know what you are talking about and are not going to pander to make your point.  Politically not very smart for BHO to take this path, but I respect his attempt.  

fwiw, a fairly objective friend of mine saw it and thought Obama came off very well.  In the 10 second clip I saw on tv, seeing them together really highlighted the age difference, not to McCain's advantage (Obama looked "old enough" -- McCain looked ancient).  

To me, McCain was a canned phony airhead.  He recycled the same five things, as in verbatim, word for word, that he has said in any public forum for 30 years, same jokes, same words.  He's about as sincerely religious as my pet cat.  Simpltistic, shallow, knee jerk.

Republicans obviously value this airheadedness.  So depressing.  

This forum did bring out my inner Christopher Hitchens - watching some preacher ask a Presidential candidate "So, tell me your thoughts on taxes..." was enough to make Thomas Jefferson turn over in his grave.  

Sounds like America will get the president it deserves.

So is the solution for Obama to 1) pander, and 2) attack McCain with no remorse?  That combo always works for the publicans.

My wife, a rather solid Republican (albeit of the fiscal conservative type), a deeply religious person (we both are - although we are high-church Lutherans, not AmeriProt types), who has never been completely sold on Obama, and has been a stalwart McCain backer for quite some time, came away from last night with the sense that McCain's sound-bite ready answers completely missed the mark.  She wanted to hear some actual thought, some contemplation, some insight into the way in which Senator McCain came to his decisions - never happened.  He was 'on message'.  

She flipped over to the Olympics at the half-hour mark of McCain's time with Warren.  "Nothing to see in these answers," she muttered.

This was a venue and audience that was never going to get behind Obama. Abortion, the court, you name it, everytihng lined up for the Republican. Give the man credit for giving it a shot. And what does he have to lose? He steals a few evangelical votes in the election, it's a cake walk. When McCain has the stones to go to a forum and defend his stance on MLK day, and not just a half-hearted apology to the NAACP, I'll give him similiar credit.

Well, whoever thinks TNRland is an Obamabot echochamber should read this thread - and jump in a lake.  Whatever one thinks of the short or long term impact of the "debate", at least here there is a measure of objective assessment by his supporters.

Wandrey: "This forum did bring out my inner Christopher Hitchens".

We should all channel our inner CH once in a while.  After all, it's been a lifelong dream of mine to appear before a grand jury and denounce my best friend, a political hack, of perjury.  Well, second only to writing a book calling St. Francis "the ghoul of Assisi". ;-)

 Obama was never going to win over the audience in the church, which was probably 60-80% McCain supporters. And the setting certainly helped McCain, as he could simply speak Republican talking points and get cheered.

It would be like if the same debate took place in front of the NACCP or NARAL.

McCain was certainly helped by two things: a very friendly crowd and lack of follow-up questions.

For instance, his assertion that people get human rights at conception is fairly radical, and would place him well outside the mainstream on this issue.

For example if a 1-day-old fetus has the same human rights that the born have, then presumptively you couldnt have abortions in cases of rape or incest. (After all, a mother couldn't kill her 2 year old child because that child was the product of rape).

Also, it would seriously call into question whether women could have abortions if their health or even lives were at stake. (Legally you cant kill another person, even to save your own life.)

Again, a radical concept that I think goes too far for most Americans.

Winner = one who made more progress from his position before the event, rather than who ended up in front at the end. Obama, I suspect, started out way way behind with this particular crowd.

This might be another another way of saying "grade on a curve" but I think it is a much better way.

what kgrant said in his first post.

McCain won because he's better at the soundbite, and because he was speaking to an audience that already thinks his way. But he repeated the same crap he says all the time. If you've been following closely, it was all stump. And he really reminded me of George Bush -- like the cat who swallowed the canary when a joke went over well, or like a naughty little boy who got away with it 'cause the  grown ups think he's cute. Just how often will people see that before they are reminded -- wow, this is Bush again. Do we want more of the same?

Also, it wasn't a debate. They spoke seperately. In a debate, Obama could have driven points home, pointed out contrasts. So to say he wouldn't do well in a debate is premature.

As far as faith went, I thought Obama did better.

Obama tries to be thoughtful. And you'd think America would want that after the last eight years, but apparently not. He's gonna have to do just a little better at the soundbite.

And who knows, maybe this will make McCain so cocky, he'll try it again.  And again and again.

Obama should look at last night in two ways:

1. Learn from it: He's gotta brush up on the soundbites. He wanted to be thoughtful because of the forum, but he's selling himself here.

2. Feel good that in a way, he did win -- I'm willing to bet that Christians of all stripes who were in doubt about him feel more comfortable with him now, and that any attempts to revive Rev. Wright or his otherness/muslim stuff will have less bite.

But both candidates achieved what they came to do: Evangelicals are probably more comfortable with both of them.

And those who are really concerned about good works, not just abortion, will be impressed by Obama.

And I just had a thought. The one answer that McCain gave that was long-winded, and which he was clearly dodging by burying the answer in a long-winded ramble was the one about what he considers rich. He said five million, but you had to be paying attention to hear it. THen I realized that most of Obama's answers that are long winded, while to his supporters seem nuanced (and they are) and thoughtful (and they are), may appear to others as dodging the question.

The most depressing thing about the forum was CNN's post-game analysis. Everyone was blown away by McCain's two word answers. The closing remark from CNN's resident blond bimbo: "McCain gave short, winning answers, while Obama, like Kerry and Gore, was, unfortunately, too nuanced."

I can understand it when simpleminded voters use these criteria for selecting the winners and losers of forums like this. But it makes me ill to see CNN *encouraging* them.

ralphnelle: "...it makes me ill to see CNN *encouraging* them." Me too. It was completely depressing.

ralphnelle - your post makes me want to renounce my citizenship.

The press has learned nothing from their coronation of the dumbest, most destructive President we've ever had over someone who was "too nuanced."

All I can do is sent hate mail to CNN.

kgrant - really interesting posts.

CNN like Fox news, ABC etc are part of the presidential politics terrain. Obama should understand that and deal with it if he's to win. It is what it is.

Jeez, it seems I was more in touch with my inner jock (jocks, don't laugh out loud (lol) if you can help it ;-) than my inner pol. Dorky as he looks, Michael Phelps is a human phenomenon; stress *human.* Took me back to my better high school days, in Illinois (compared to North Hollywood), where in gym class I, the dorky little homosexual I was got on so well with the rest of the guys. The secret may have been I was always cheerful and generous (awwww) in praise, enthusiastically learned from my betters, and fought like hell on the mats while overwhelmingly losing every single damn match but one. My coaches even liked me (with one glaring exception, poop on him).

So I missed the Praise the Lord Out. I credit Obama for going with all beauty marks and warts showing. He's a booker, but one who deserves to be President, unlike the cranky hysteric slogan slopper he opposes.

'N' thatz the truth.

McCain and his government by anecdotes. Good lord if that isn't enough to give one pause about him.

I realize candidates can't be honest, but his most wrenching decision in his life just so happens to be the most self-serving? As a soldier if he had left early he would have come home in shame, so honestly, that decision seems like a no-brainer. Hmmm...his decision, betray his fellow POW's taking advantage of family connections or do his duty. I am not saying it didn't take courage, not to be a coward does, but gut wrenching? How about deciding to cheat on your first wife and then dump her, nothing gut wrenching there, huh John?

This "debate" and McCain's never failing to take the anecdote route as a substitute for actual policy upon close examination does show that McCain really is not ready. But hey, if we are going to vote for who is more interesting at a cocktail party, then McCain is the man.

TNR contributing editor Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life

With Obama and McCain slated to appear together this Saturday at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church

Scrubby: "Obama should... deal with it if he's to win. It is what it is."

I agree. The Obama team should bring on the soundbites. Some short punchy personal stories would be good too. As for the rest of us, though, we can vent a little, no?

I'll fess up, I couldn't bring myself to watch a minute of the Prayer Affair, because Evangelical Christianity American Style inspires me to anguish. In my heart of hearts I am a Praise-the-Lord kid never grown up, a narcissistic Jesus boy. A most favorite passage in the Psalms is "I will praise the Lord all my days,/ make music to my God while I live." and "Blessed be the Lord forever."

Then there's the world-weary six decades old grown up, a deepening (and I hope wiser) pessimist. To me, most big time contemporary evangelical Protestant groups such as Warren's, offer, if not alone simplistic slogans and psychological overstimulation, then a still anti-intellectual choice between the whole grain oatmeal raisin cookie, and the lightly arsenic laced lime jello salad. It may be meaningful to some, but intellectually and politically uninteresting to cheerfully mind and heart numbing as usual. It's just too painful to entertain even a minute, let alone a whole hour or long the McCain Obama show lasted.

That's my narcissistic late pessimistic accounting why I think the Warren event won't make much difference one way or other. Obama is neither cookie nor jello, so I can't see him suffering the E-C program, media savvy or not.

As someone who thought McCain was at his best -- no green backgrounds, half-empty halls, geographical errors, or phony smiles --  I would bet that Obama significantly reduced the percentage of voters (12%) that previously believed he was currently a Muslim, as well as increasing the number of those who now consider him a kindred spirit Christian.  Not a bad night's work.  In football we ask the question, did the play gain or lose yardage.  I think Obama gained some tough yardage, and the game ain't over.  It's barely begun.

Noam calls it "advantage Obama".....but, as a die hard Obama supporter of long standing in these parts, I have to agree with the naysayers.  I gave it to McCain (as a political presentation, both in the hall and outside with that larger, nonevangelical audience that watched on several networks....), hands down.

Granted, Barack was considered and thoughtful and seemed to be engaged in a serious conversation on issues and values.....great public television stuff.  (Bill Moyers would have loved it....), and McCain was all schtick.  But it was good schtick.  He has the McCain impression down to a "t", and it was pure Ronald Reagan to Barack's Adlai.   Barack was considered, deliberate, nuanced, cool and professorial.  McCain was blunt and direct, passionate, funny and down to earth.  Granted, he didn't have to parse anything.....he isn't pro-choice, and pro-gay rights in front of an audience of rich (they each paid $2000 to get in..) conservative evangelicals with a Republican predispostion.  And he didn't have Rick Warren muttering "uh-humm, uh,humm" all through his answers like he couldn't wait for him to finish up.  But Warren didn't need to.......McCain  was terse and concise.  Black and white.  Yes and no.  Just the way Americans like their Presidents.

There has been lots of loose (and hopeful, from our side) talk about how this election may be like 1980, with the public not making up it's mind until the last couple weeks and breaking to Barack once they decide that they are comfortable with him, after the debates.  Based on what I saw last night, I'm not counting on that.  McCain looked a whole lot more like Reagan (the affable, story telling, common sensical and earthy guy next door Reagan that beat Jimmy Carter) than Barack did.  Barack needs to step up his game if wants to close any sales at a debate with John McCain.  He needs to somehow bring more of the funny, loose and quick witted guy we see on the stump ("It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant!") if he hopes to pull off a Reagan in November.  John McCain just got a whole lot more formidable looking to me.

tnmats writes, "So is the solution for Obama to 1) pander, and 2) attack McCain with no remorse?  That combo always works for the publicans."

Others wrote similar sentiments that Obama was intelligent and nuanced.  why can't he use the winning Neanderthal tactics of the GOP?

Lincoln was probably the wisest and most intelligent man ever to occupy the white House.  Maybe ever to trod our soil.

He was certainly nuanced.  But, he also knew how to make both moral judgements and decisive statements that didn't suggest an "on the one hand, on the other hand" approach to difficult questions.

And, of course, the questions that he and the nation faced were far more so than most that we do today.  Save existential questions of how to face down Jihadhists and the two great tyrannies that occupy the planet with us, China and Russia.

"But, he also knew how to make both moral judgements and decisive statements that didn't suggest an "on the one hand, on the other hand" approach to difficult questions."

Because of course we would never want to have a "on the one hand, Russia is a corrupt kleptocracy, on the other hand it still had a massive nuclear arsenal, not to mention 5 million barrels of oil production a day" approach to this difficult question.

Yup.  Moral clarity you can take a nuclear grave ...

mcpatrickhendri writes, "... When McCain has the stones to go to a forum and defend his stance on MLK day, and not just a half-hearted apology to the NAACP, I'll give him similiar credit."

I believe McCain appeared before the NAACP on 17 July of this year.  And was received cordially.  McCain has public state, "I was wrong" in opposing Martin Luther King Day on several occasions.  

The NAACP moderators were free to ask McCain about MLK day.  they chose not to.  And, in any event, his previous opposition to an MLK Day does not equal opposition to Civil Rights by any stretch of the imagination.

Creating such a national holiday is tantamount to agreeing that King is as great and vital to our history as Washington and Lincoln.  Even Jefferson and FDR do not have national holidays.

It was not a moral failing of McCain to have judged against MLK day once.  And he has since reversed his judgement.

Meanwhile, Obama does not have a long national public record.  So, he so far has no egregious mistakes to regret.

sbzuck writes, "...Obama was never going to win over the audience in the church, which was probably 60-80% McCain supporters. And the setting certainly helped McCain, as he could simply speak Republican talking points and get cheered."

Obama also received very considerable cheers, and many times.  And, I bet from every quarter of the church.  He said some laudable things that were easy to cheer.

The audience may have favored McCain, but that was not notably audible.

by the way, I don't know much about the Saddleback Church.  but, I do know it's leader and pastor wrote "The Purpose-Driven Life".  

That expresses a sentiment that hardly sounds narrowly "Evangelical".  And that the book has sold 25 million copies suggests the message of this church transcends its particular sect.

hemlock41 writes, "...I agree. The Obama team should bring on the soundbites. Some short punchy personal stories would be good too. "

Hemlcok and others, your contention that Obama is all thought while McCain is all sound bite, it belied by an Obama campaign driven to a great extent by slogans like "hope," "change," and "You are the change you have been waiting for" and other New Agey granola.

Obama has a lot more "nuance" to put forth before you have license to grant the man a monopoly on thoughtfulness.

Chan: " But, [Lincoln] also knew how to make both moral judgements and decisive statements that didn't suggest an "on the one hand, on the other hand" approach to difficult questions."

You think the civil war was an easy decision for him? It wasn't. He weighed both sides - looked at both of his two metaphorical hands, as he should have. Any approach to difficult questions that doesn't involve an "on-the-other-hand" inquiry is irresponsible.  And after thinking* it over, Lincoln made some decisions, as will President Obama.

Do you seriously think Obama is incapable of coming to a conclusion or making a decision? Or is this about "suggest" - what those other people will think, because he took too long to answer?

*thinking is good.

psantillana writes, "...You think the civil war was an easy decision for him? It wasn't."

No, did agonized, and did everything he could-- short of abandoning vital principles-- to avoid war.  

And ultimately, he faced the hard path of fighting the war.  A war the Democrats of that era wanted to arbitrate and settle by letting the South go its own way.  See "Copperheads" and McClellan.

Chan: Are you seriously comparing the Democrats of the 19th Century with the Democrats of today? You know, some things happened between the 1940s and the 1970s that fundamentally changed the party. I suppose, given the choice, Obama would own slaves and relocate Native Americans, right? He did speak at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, after all.

Simplistic Republican Rule Number 1:  

- the only moral clarity available is from the end of a gun, everything else is appeasement or weakness.  Whether or not we have the resources or if guns are remotely the correct strategy is irrelevant.  

**added requirement to Rule Number 1: everyone else fights but said Republicans hectoring for all war all the time or anyone in their families, McCain being the only exception in my lifetime.

- under no circumstances does anyone calling for war have any personal responsibility in figuring how to paying for any war except to charge unborn generations.

You know what Chan?  You and your party's idea of moral clarity is as muddled and solipsistic as I've ever seen.

According to the NYTimes, the honorable McCain, whose integrity is unquestionable by dint of his having been a POW 30+ years ago, was NOT in a "cone of silence" during Obama's portion of the forum -- though he was happy to play along with Warren in front of millions when he came on stage. Still, he is a war hero; so it couldn't possibly be the case that his unhesitating, "decisive" answers had anything to do with the fact that he knew the questions in advance.

I think, like Noam, that Obama wins just for showing up at this thing and doing well. The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats have written off this demographic for the last few election cycles, so there's only an upside for Obama to be there, intelligently present his case and show that he:

a. doesn't have horns

b. doesn't hate America

c. doesn't want to force all Americans to have abortions and same sex marriages

d. is a committed Christian

e. and may even share a lot of their views on the environment, the economy and the war.

It's also worth remembering that this is an audience that's been particularly susceptible to the internet smears about his background. This forum presented the best possible opportunity to put a lot of those lies to bed.

Hemlock: reminded me of the last scene of "Being There" - something along the lines of, "all you need to be in this country is to be a honkey".

Just imagine, for 30 seconds, if it had been the other way around.  Allegations of affirmative action and so on would have filled the air to no end.  Well, I think this is yet another example of the Being There syndrome ... plus, of course, affirmative action for the senior and senile McCain, who needs all the help he can get to keep it up.

Here is the story: note the last graph, where Rick Davis, after denouncing "a blatant falsehood", actually confirms the falsehood.  Now, I am more convinced than ever that McCain will win this election.  Where there is no shame, no honour, no dignity, there is electoral gain.

"In the letter, reprinted by Mike Allen of Politico, Davis claimed that the claim was "completely unsubstantiated" and a "blatant falsehood."

However, the New York Times' Kit Seelye has boldly backed up Mitchell's claim in today's story, "Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn't in a 'Cone of Silence'." Per Seelye:

Senator John McCain was not in a "cone of silence" on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California... The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who followed Mr. Obama's hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually the same questions as Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain's performance was well received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. Warren implied.

(snip)

Mr. Warren, the pastor of Saddleback, had assured the audience while he was interviewing Mr. Obama that "we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence" and that he could not hear the questions... Interviewed Sunday on CNN, Mr. Warren seemed surprised to learn that Mr. McCain was not in the building during the Obama interview.

This corroborates Mitchell's report, which was "McCain may not have been in the cone of silence" (he wasn't, at least not for the duration) and "may have some ability to overhear" the question (unclear, but if the purpose of the 'cone of silence' is to guard against that, then presumably being outside it might have afforded that opportunity.

But even without Seelye, Mitchell was corroborated...by Davis. He wrote, "The fact is that during Senator Obama's segment at Saddleback last night, Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed." That means that he was not in the cone of silence during the Obama questioning, confirming Mitchell's report."

Pastor Rick was able to summon sides of the candidates we can't usually see in standard debates.

From her On Faith column: By the time McCain finished his interview with pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback

Since I refused to watch the thing (as a "high-church Presbyterian" I don't intend to take dictation from Rick Warren any more than from Pat Robertson), I had to rely on the musings of my red-meat in-laws.  His first response was to think that Obama lost on the abortion question (no shock--Obama would have had to renounce everything he's ever  said and done to get on the right side of that question for dear ol' dad-in-law), but then that was (surprisingly) undone by McCain's answer on the "rich" question.  Finally he acknowledged coming out less certain of  his McCain support than before.  So in one family at least, the event was a monster win for Obama.

The good reviews continue to pour in for McCain, missing what, in my opinion, was the key feature of