Rick Warren, Public Confessor [UPDATED AGAIN]

UPDATE:  This post should really be revised based on watching almost the entire program straight through.  But I'll leave it in place because the slanted impression I got from CNN's emphasis in excerpting it is itself very telling.

I didn't see the entire presentation with both candidates at Saddleback Church (maybe it will be aired again later).  I'm watching bits of it with discussion now on CNN. 

My reaction to what I've seen? 

McCain seems to be playing a role; Obama seems to be thinking out loud. 

Not that the role McCain is playing isn't close to who he is.  (And he's not playing a role when he talks about his decision not to accept the proffered privilege of early release from prison; that's raw and moving.)  It's not a stretch for him to assert the positions he does.  It's just simpler than who he is.  He appears to have a laser-focused goal for this event of convincing evangelicals and conservatives of his resolve as an unbending defender of traditional and patriotic values.

Surprisingly to me, the commentators from all points of the political compass -- toughened political operatives all -- are basically saying that Obama comes across as too thoughtful, not emotional enough to rally a crowd, as if thought drives out emotion.  The dreaded word "nuance" comes up.  In essence, I think they're saying that the complexity with which Obama weighs complex issues confuses average voters and makes them feel uneasy when what they want is to feel sure, secure, roused and reassured.

This pisses me off, first of all because it seems condescending to and manipulative of "average voters," a cynical and calculated stroking of their sincerity.  Second, because while I don't like Obama's history of liberalism, I do like his thoughtfulness.  I am someone who gets emotional about thought and who is more moved by honesty about complexity than by slogans and rallying cries.  It's the reason why I, too, lack the common touch and will probably be 70 years old before I reach 400,000 blog hits.  Being this way is probably a luxury of being sheltered and educated, with more time to think than necessity to react.  That's why it will always be a minority way of being.  But the sense that you can trust someone who pushes your buttons but not someone who shows you what's on his or her mind -- that's galling to me.  I can't help it.

Watching this, I like both men.  But McCain is being a good little boy, giving the expected answers, reciting the conservative political catechism.  No maverick he, tonight.  He's more interesting than that, and it's the more complex and contradictory McCain who could win over independents.  But he's not playing it that way.  He's going to play to the base -- who wouldn't vote for Obama in any case, the danger is that they might stay home -- and try to mop up the centrist vote by discrediting Obama.  Trying to paint Obama as irresolute and untrustworthy because he thinks may not work, however.

I'm curious to hear how other centrists are reacting.  The world is becoming ever more complex.  To embrace that complexity with a naïve unwariness is dangerous, but so is falling back on an obsolete mindset just because it's simpler.   Is it possible to be both thoughtful and resolute?  Is there a place other than preconception that swift right action can come from?  I think there is, but -- surprising myself -- I realize that it isn't thought.  It's more like instinct.  Does one of these men have that?

UPDATE:  I'm watching the whole thing now, and when you're not watching highlights (selected by CNN -- I think CNN was trying to give the impression I got above), Obama can indeed sometimes sound too cerebral and hypothetical.  On the other hand, he's funny, quick, informal and unguarded in a way that is appealing.  He seems comfortable with himself and not afraid of scrutiny.

I find that I have posed a false dichotomy because McCain sounds very thoughtful.  And sharp as a tack, for those who worry or hope that he's losing his edge.  His answer to the "three wise people" question is brilliant.  He's funny as hell, too.  I wish he would stop throwing in "my friends," though.  It's gone past trademark into shtik.

Althouse thinks McCain's answer on evil was better, that Obama was "only abstract."  There I disagree.  Obama all but came out and said that we have to be watchful of evil within -- ourselves, our country -- as well as without.  People may not like to hear that, but it's true.  And the example he gave was our city streets, not our boardrooms.

I think they both came across well, but that Obama is more hypothetical.  Not abstract.  There's a difference.  He comes from a physically sheltered generation whose challenges have mostly been emotional and familial.  And his engagement with international issues as a U.S. senator is new.  Yes, it's his inexperience I'm talking about.

UPDATE II:  This morning on "This Week," Daschle tries to set up a dichotomy between "experience" and "judgment."  Mitt Romney answers well, saying approximately, "I think judgment comes from experience of the world."  Daschle then brings up McCain's gaffes:  "Senator Obama knows we haven't had a 'Czechosolvakia' for twenty years.  He knows that Iraq doesn't border on Afghanistan."  And Stephanopolous cuts the discussion off on that note, not giving Romney a chance to rejoinder that Obama may have memorized the atlas, but McCain has been there.

Comments

[Peter Hoh]

I know that many of your readers won't consider me a centrist, but I would have voted for McCain in 2000 had he been running against Gore.

While I was glad to see him win the nomination this time around, I've been disappointed by his general campaign thus far.

[amba]

American politics is such that a politician with crossover appeal can't please one group of his or her supporters without disappointing another.

[RW Rogers]

As you know, I'm not a fan of either. Unlike you, I did not think McCain was role-playing. I think he was pretty much being himself, albeit remarkably well-focused. Not much he said here tonight is any different than what he has said over the years. I think he established his bona fides WRT political independence in the course of the evening. McCain was prepared, nimble, self-confident and humorous.

Obama did fine as well, all things considered. Most die-hard Republicans will disagree but I believe that his appeal is based on the perception that he is a conciliator not an ideologue. Obama came across tonight as thoughtful, low-key and, most important for him, reassuring.

The stark contrast between the two candidate's answers to the question about the three wisest people they know was interesting.

[wj]

Rather interesting that those political operatives are faulting Obama as too thoughtful to rally a crowd. Considering that one of the knocks on him has concerned how successful he has been at rallying crowds. A cynic could suspect that "seasoned political operatives" don't cotton to him precisely because, if his approach to politics succeeds, a lot of them may find that their skills are viewed as obsolete.

[amba]

Yeah, there is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" dynamic developing towards Obama -- "he can't rally a crowd," "all he does is rally a crowd."

I find the man close-up quite likeable and confidence-inspiring. It's maybe in the "middle distance" of something like a debate that he's at his worst.

[amba]

That is -- this was a conversation with Rick Warren, whom he has known for quite a while; at least, that's how he played it -- like an intimate conversation on public display, rather than a way to directly address the public as McCain did. So he was engaging. So was McCain, in his own way.

[amba]

I've always been a sucker for that soothing, mock-humble softspokenness of McCain's.

[RW Rogers]

What did you think of the format compared to the typical "debate" seen in any number of past elections?

[amba]

I liked it quite a lot. First of all, it gave an interesting individual with a distinct point of view, Rick Warren, control of the questions. That made them different from the usual journalistic challenges, which have become predictable. Second, it allowed us to see each candidate in some depth. The fact that they could not hear and adapt to each other's answers (which Ann called "thrilling," though at first she hadn't thought she'd like it) meant that the contrasts between them were unforced.

[RW Rogers]

That's basically how I felt. For once it didn't feel like a complete waste of time. Frankly, I'm tired of the gotcha game of so-called professional journalists (and their excessive preening in the process) as well as the scripted questions (both pro- and con- a candidate) at phony town halls.