“For many evangelicals, of course, if they believe that life begins at conception, that’s a deal breaker for a lot of people. If they think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have voted. They would call that a holocaust and for them it would like if I’m Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don’t care how right he is on everything else, it’s a deal breaker for me. I’m not going to vote for a Holocaust denier…”

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/2008/08/rick-warren-to-godometer-obama.html

Don’t forget small businesses are taxed at the individual rates, so many small businesses that employ 5 people are going to gross more than $1M easily. And all 5 of those people will be middle class.

Hitting the fat act rich is not as easy as it sounds.

Actually, that’s a great point: “cheating” and knowing the questions beforehand probably wouldn’t have changed anything that either candidate said. There really weren’t any “holy crap, I didn’t see *that* coming” moments, on either side.

As far as I can see, there were two true pandering, “I just won’t answer this question” moments: Obama when asked about when life begins, and McCain when asked to define “rich”. They both danced around it, Obama with “above my pay grade”, and McCain with “I want to lower everyone’s taxes”. But McCain made the mistake of saying “$5 million”. Holy cow – $4.75 million above the top 2% of the country is where you finally define “rich”?

But in both cases – they *had* to do that, either because of their base, or because of who they were. I very much look forward to the first actual debate: that’s when the polls will actually become meaningful.

I don’t think either candidate would have answered any differently even if provided with the exact, specific questions several hours ahead.

McCain is usually direct and Obama is usually rhetorical. Both gave answers that reflected their real views.

The questions were better than the silly, liberal pandering, MSM debate questions. Which is why McCain won. Which is also why Obama won’t face McCain one on one.

That “debate” was very reassuring for the Repubs. A good VP can clinch it.

No, it would not have. I am not that petty. I doubt it would have even been an issue.

Besides, I heard clip earlier from Warren himself and he said that his people were with McCain, and that he was in the cone of silence, whatever the hell that was. He sounded more than a little disgusted that it was even a subject for discussion.

Actually, I agree with you – I don’t think he cheated. However, if this situation had been reversed – if McCain had gone first, and if Obama had arrived halfway through – the reaction from you all would have been hi-LAR-ious.

Okay, do it – go find me some of these “many” people from the left that think “Obama did very poorly”. Now, that doesn’t mean they think McCain came off better, or that Obama went a little too long in his answers, or whatever – they have to actually be of the opinion that Obama did “very poorly” (or some similar paraphrasing).

The first link from AJ above said that “Obama was fluent, cool and cerebral”. The NYT link doesn’t say anything about Obama’s performance. And the TNR article was posted on Friday – before the event itself.

I know it will come as a shock to you, but it is possible for someone to think *both* candidates did well. You don’t have to be in lockstep with your party’s talking points on every freaking point. I don’t know why the GOP insists on this “thou shalt say nothing good about a Democrat”, but it’s insulting.

Now, I will agree that there’s been a somewhat “muted” response from the Left on this. But I believe that’s because a lot of lefty bloggers were expecting Obama to wipe the floor with McCain. But he didn’t, mostly because McCain was better at this than some people thought – they were hoping for a gaffe on the level of mixing-up of Sunni/Shia, talking about the Iraq/Pakistan border, or insisting that the Surge caused the Anbar Awakening. None of that happened – they both hit their main talking points. I’d call it a tie, myself

McCain did better than Obama because he just answered the questions with directness and honesty. Obama took the nuanced i.e. tortured tact of answering questions and it was too tedious.

McCain did not cheat, the very assertion is ridiculous and it is something Obama’s defenders came up with to explain away his poor performance. They have no evidence of any kind of cheating at all, but it seems they don’t think they need any. It is enough to shoot off their mouths.

McCain was on his way during Obama’s part and when he got there Obama was still speaking so he went into some green room somewhere and waited until it was his turn.

Your argument is this: “some people’s reactions are partisan, therefore ALL reactions are partisan.” That is foolish and illogical.

Andrew Sullivan, as you yourself know, is no conservative and is completely in the tank for Obama. We can show you many on the left who think Obama did very poorly; you however will not find a SINGLE conservative who thinks McCain did poorly. That is not a partisan split; that is a sign that Obama blew it badly and only the most hard core fanatics and ideologues still refuse to admit it.

That might be the silliest thing I’ve ever read. Pointing out partisan reactions negates my point that the reactions were partisan? Eh? How does that work, exactly?

But I do find it strange that when Rev. Warren said McCain was in “a cone of silence”, he was actually still traveling from his hotel room to the event. Why say something that wasn’t true?

You had made up your minds about that event before you even saw it – the same as the DKos folks did the other way.

It could be that Rev Warren actually believed it when he said it.

made up your minds?  I think most McCain supporters thought it was a set up to make McCain look bad, and vice versa.  Just didn’t work out that way.

Honest answers?

Yeah, tell us you were ‘impressed’ by Obama’s answer to the question about when life begins.

“I feel like my IQ has dropped 10 points just reading your tripe.”
Well said jb, Yep, he has that effect on people.

Breschau argumentation is “it’s true because I say so.”

Sullivan has a conservative cred. Why? Because he says so.

How about asking actual conservatives whether he still has that cred?

Regardless, the very premise that the split is partisan, therefore any counterexamples you present are somehow points in your favor is logically fallacious.

I feel like my IQ has dropped 10 points just reading your tripe.