Look into McCain’s past infidelity I doubt you’ll find any character.

Seems your decision is based on a womans’ right to control ther body. If you want the government to control your body vote for McCain.

“Good”, “Evil”, “God” seems your a follower of Reagan/Bush, they co-opted the Relgious right more-so Bush through Karl Roves campaign brilliance.

Thanks again for the great article. It has brought out the “best”(beast) in everyone here.
Fantastic! It seems our little group has turned to sniping just like the regular press as the real issues fall to the wayside. And yes, folks there is good and evil and there really is a God, and there really is no gray space between factual truth and lies.That gray space is filled with opinion and philosophy. Besides, why else do you think there are so many lawyers in this world? Ah, for a simpler life.

Yes resort to snide remarks, typical when you have nothing left to say for yourself.

Not to mention you have not contributed to the conversation other then false assesments of views other then your own.

I wanted to be as blunt and to the point so you can follow. I guess I over estimated your level of comprehension, sorry.

I’m sure McCain will welcome you vote.

I’m done.

-Ken it is more so you do not understand. Try helping yourself understand my points.

What you consider yourself in the political spectrum is up to you. Judging from the 2,400 hits on this article, you, me and a hand full of writers are compeled enough to voice opinions is because they feel strongly about either candidate i.e. political party identification.

You stated:
“Equivocation and pandering are not virtues, even though you seem to think so.”

You may not have a grasp of our electorate demographics or how polarized our society is, if so you would not be quick to label politicians as such.

Ken you also stated: “This is just filler and rhetorical nonsense. I have no doubt that you have learned this style of communication by listening to people like Barack Obama.”

You stated:”I am comfortable with answers which address questions in a straight forward manner. I am comfortable with answers which provide insight into a candidates world view.”

So who offers this, McCain? And you do not believe he is pandering for your vote? He is robbing you of objectivity and that is what people who feed on simple “straight forward” answers want to hear.

As I stated befor, you simply do not want to understand the complexities of our society, thats fine, then vote for McCain.

“The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.”

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”

“If my point was not clear enough we live in a democracy where people have differing views on these polarizing topics.”

Really? We live in a Democracy? People have differing views?

I point this out as a specific example of how some people answer questions without ever saying anything. YOU HAVE SAID NOTHING HERE. This is just filler and rhetorical nonsense. I have no doubt that you have learned this style of communication by listening to people like Barack Obama.

“Obama is excellent at communication more-so then McCain. If you are comfortable in black and white, yes and no, answers then vote for McCain.”

I am comfortable with answers which address questions in a straight forward manner. I am comfortable with answers which provide insight into a candidates world view. Barack Obama provided very little to further our understanding of his world view.

I am not bothered that many of his answers conflict with my positions. I am bothered that most of his answers didn’t answer the questions which were asked.

“In my view we live in a complex society. Easy simple to understand two sentence responses rob everyone from the complexities of our society. That is where I believe Obama will win the Presidency because he will help bring the polarization of our society back to the middle common ground.”

Equivocation and pandering are not virtues, even though you seem to think so.

“The far right and far left can just stay where they feel most comfortable no one will change them and no one is trying too.”

How did the far right and far left enter into this conversation? Do you consider me far right, or do you consider yourself far left?

Senator Obama was literally a Constitutional Law lecturer/professor at one of the most presdigious school in the United States, University of Chicago.

Like I said before, if those of you that want cut and dry, black and white, yes and no answers, to complex issues vote for McCain.

I just think you are being robbed of understanding the issues to think you deserve easy answers.

Wouldnt you want someone who can balance issues and see things from more then one perspective? A one sided approach is what we have in the Oval Office right now. I think the people are sick of what we have now and want change for the better.

McCain’s perspectives seem to be heading for more of the same Bush/Cheney policies, some welcome this, but many of us fortunatly do not.

1. Which candidate answered the questions most frequently and most clearly?
2. Which candidates dodged questions the most?
3. Which candidate’s answers do you think most clearly were given in the spirit of “full disclosure”?
4. Which candidate’s views do you more clearly understand after reading the answers?
5. Which candidate seemed most genuine to you?
6. Which candidate’s answers were most consistent with past statements and their record- this assumes the students would have been provided with that information?

I commend you on a fine article. I also had not seen the event nor read the transcript. When I came home tonight it was refreshing to see the comparative column. Also interesting are the comments here which seem so clear to me and are as divergent as the actual event itself was.

None of us have a monopoly on morality nor can give a perfect definition of good or evil yet there are some who view all in shades of gray.

I am not afraid to say that we all were born equal under God and that our country was formed with spiritual knowledge of good and evil as understood by the writers of our constitution.

Basic laws and freedoms have universal basis and simply pertain to all. None of these simple rules should be tailored to suit the day or the current desires of anyone. Obama fits the perfect description of one who picks and chooses the rules that suit him at the moment in his quest for power. Situation ethics are not what we need or want in a leader. We want to know where our candidate stands clearly on moral issues because morality and rule of law is what Americans should stand for.

Always fun to have these little chats with you, from somewhat opposite sides of the political center! –Mark Mercer

So you like GW’s good vs. evil depiction of the world, that is telling in and of itself.

And you buy into this media liberal slant? so where do you search for the truth, or yur interpetation of the truth?

So GW’s policies fight evil because he is “good”. America is “good” and our government is fighting “evil”?

Liberals are “evil” and Conservatives are “good”? Please explain because I have never bought into this type of thinking.

Also you state: “right and wrong are not interchangeable” If you think something is wrong or right and you recieved information that contradicts your thinking would you still stand behind your original thought?

Define marriage.
SEN. MCCAIN: A union — a union between man and woman, between one man and one woman. That’s my definition of marriage. (Applause.)

Are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court justices, or should I mention it?

REV. WARREN: We will get to that

Face it. The president of the United States does not and has not lead this country religiosly in our past, and hopefully will not in our future. It is not his/her job. It is our job. It is time to stop hoping someone will be our moral compass and start being it our selves.
Live the life we are asked to live and this country will be great again.
And if our next President is listening. Be honest, be responsable, be forgiving, and think. We’ve had enough of the opposite for the last 8 years.
Good luck to both candidates. I look forward to the debates and to the future of our great country.

Take the facts for what they are this is not about me. If my point was not clear enough we live in a democracy where people have differing views on these polarizing topics.

You think your beliefs are alligned more-so with McCain, fine vote for him.

Obama is excellent at communication more-so then McCain. If you are compfortable in black and white, yes and no, answers then vote for McCain.

In my view we live in a complex society. Easy simple to understand two sentence responses rob everyone from the complexities of our society. That is where I believe Obama will win the Presidency because he will help bring the polarization of our society back to the middle common ground.

The far right and far left can just stay where they feel most compfortable no one will change them and no one is trying too.

You, like Barack Obama have an irritating ability to string together words without actually making a point. You wrote:

“we live in a democracy, not everyone is from the Saddlback church, or have the same faith, desires, interests, and yes our morals have different levels.”

These are obvious facts. You, like Barack Obama have told us nothing about who you are or how you think by making this statement.

You perceive Barack Obama as “human and articulate”. I perceive him as shifty and unable to answer a question directly and succinctly. His perspectives are not refined, they are filtered. There’s a huge difference.

Obama seems more human, able to articulate, and refine his perspectives. I think America has seen enough people in the Executive Office i.e. Bush/Cheney who are unyeilding to comprimise, unyeiliding outright to the will of the people, or the will of Congress.

I seen parts of the Saddeback interview, nothing new on the subjects same topics that divide the Country.

I think Obama will bring these hot topics more into perspective, rather then polarizing everyone.

It is o.k. to have differences
we live in a democracy, not everyone is from the Saddlback church, or have the same faith, desires, interests, and yes our morals have different levels.