Dancing with Obama

"With all due respect, you are reaching. There is no hope that sins would be washed away if you confess them. I am not going to put words in your mouth in regards to "unproven higher purpose" because I am hoping that you are not saying what that statement seems to be implying. Also, I hope that you don't think of Jesus as a Zygote, when God told Mary that she was with his son."

It is simply not logical for "faith" to go with certainty. You can not have "faith" in something that is a fact. Though the correct religion/denomination would simply describe the facts of the celestial realm, because the proof is beyond human realization, we must believe by "faith" because of the uncertainties. All Christians do not believe simply because one says they are a Christian, all their sins are washed away and they have a free ticket to heaven, God's promise is those who truly believe and confess their sins will go to heaven, but each individual Christian can only "hope" that they meet this criteria, of which our good works are a sign of true salvation. Even Mother Teresa doubted, even as she did the work of a saint. This acceptence of the uncertainty of faith is what gives the believers' walk its transcendent power, because when one freely chooses God, even without being assured that they are making the right choice, but rather out of the love and connection one feels from the higher power, then that is true love. The uncertainty of "faith" is the proof that we do not believe simply because we are trying to save ourselves from eternal damnation, but rather because we feel in our heart of hearts, that serving the Lord is the best path for our lives and the lives of those we come into contact with. If our "faith" was a mere certainty then there would be no mystery to belief, nothing more than a quid pro quo of adherence for blessing, a complete usurpation of God's promise of free will.

As for the "Jesus as a Zygote" line, yes, Jesus was a zygote when God told Mary "she was with child." Since the 3rd century the church has worked hard to hammer home the idea that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God simultaneously and thus other than his immaculate conception, Jesus developed like any other man until his crucifixtion. Plus I would add, I do not believe God really thinks of humans as they are at the moment, but given his omniscience and omnipresence, I believe He considers the whole existence of a person even as he may be communicating with you as child, adult or on your deathbed, so I doubt He would quibble about zygote, fetus etc. (especially given that these concepts didn't exist in aramaic at the time of Christ's birth).
But you have not anwsered my question, "if life begins at conception, do we have a moral obligation to save every fertilized egg?" Because I believe we as a society, we have a moral resposibility to save as many lives as possible even those which would be lost to natural causes, thus if life begins at conception, we would have to save every fertilized egg.

"Your assertion that Obama said Campaign Ethics Reform...only if wrong. He said BOTH Campaign Finance Reform and Campaign Ethics Reform. I played that tape back a couple of times just to make sure that he didn't simply flub the two."

I do not have the tape you're referring to, but have you considered Obama may have been referencing legislation he worked on in the Illinois State Senate. If there is one thing Obama does have a legislative track record of is fighting to limit the power of money and special interest groups in government, so I'm pretty sure he worked on a campaign finance reform bill in Illinois. I accept that all politicians pander and exaggerate, but this is the kind of a lie that is more reserved for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. But without reviewing the tape as you have, I can not refute your characterization, so I concede the point.

"Your defense of Mr. Obama's answer is interesting to say the least. I personally do not think it would be a big deal had he not four years earlier say [paraphrasing] in a press conference that he was not going to run because of his lack of experience. He hasn't even ran for re-election for his current office yet. It would be nice to see if he had staying power before he aspired for higher office, but I am not going to dispute that this is America and he has a right to run for President whenever he wants."

As I stated before, the fact that some of our greatest Presidents have had the least experience, and some of our worst Presidents have had the most experience, makes experience a dubious measure of a candidate. The Presidency is the ultimate managerial job, with advisors to advisors, processes and bureaucracies as well as broad and wide chains of command; put simply, the Presidency is a team effort and Obama (particularly with Joe Biden down the hall) will probably have one of the most experience teams around him. Obama's job will be to make decisions based on the advice of his advisors who have experience in Washington and given his intellectual propensity, his thoughtful nature and long experience of compassion, sacrifice and achievement, I believe he has all the other requirements I look for in a President more than any other candidate in my lifetime. I don't have a problem with people saying Barack Obama is too liberal (though I think he's too moderate), I can see people having a problem with his universal healthcare plan, or his plan to cut taxes for middle class people and pay for it by increasing taxes on those who make more than $150,000, or you don't want to pull out of Iraq over the next 2 years, or you don't think the government should be giving tax breaks to change the energy portfolio of the nation, or you don't think making people who make up to $250,000 a year should pay Social Security taxes like the rest of us or you just don't think Democrats have the right platform or policy proposals, but to say Obama's experience is what is holding you back, I believe is disingenuous because the Presidency isn't a job that any experience can prepare you for. Being a Senator, you are one of 100 working the parliamentary system, Governor, 1 of 50 without any military or foreign policy requirements. Woodrow Wilson was a college President, Abraham Lincoln had one term in the House of Representatives, but with strong advisors and strong leadership, these were two of our greatest Presidents.

Now when I look at the experience of John McCain, I know the war hero (which I can not praise enough), but what about his experience after Vietnam. Divorcing your wife while she recovered from cancer and then marrying a rich daughter of a beer magnate 1 month later who is 17 years younger than you, who then dropped $100,000 into your first congressional campaign to get you elected to Congress. I mean the man is supposedly for the military, yet voted against the New GI Bill because he believes sending our veterans to college is making their benefits "too generous." A "maverick" who voted with President Bush over 90% of the time during the Bush years. McCain has flip flopped on immigration because of right-wing talk shows' opposition (because people were up in arms about amnesty long before he changed his position), flip flopped on torture, leaving it up to the President to determine what is torture, even though Bush had already authorized 'waterboarding' a technique the US executed Japanese officers in WWII for using on US Servicemen. McCain vacationed and invested with his campaign contributor Charles Keating who defrauded the US government of $61 billion dollars during the Savings and Loan scandal, then when Keating was being investigate he asked McCain to go to a meeting with federal investigators where they felt "pressured" by McCain "to be fair" with Keating, now a convicted felon. John McCain who flip flopped on oil drilling and then got millions of dollars in donations from oil companies the very next day, flip flopped on the Bush Tax Cuts, which he said "mostly only benefit the wealthy" and wants to nominate Supreme Court Justices who think his signature legislative achievement is unconstitutional, yet doesn't want to nominate the Justices who agree with him. I could go on and on about why John McCain "ain't no" Maverick, but I think the truest test is looking at his closest advisors, Charlie Black, lobbyist to dictators and oil companies; Steve Schmidt, Karl Rove protégé; and Phil Gramm, architect of the mortgage foreclosure crisis. That's not the kind of experience I want in a President.

"McCain did make reference to his faith when he was talking about when he was a P.O.W. in Vietnam. As a born again believer, you should know that just because people quote scripture does not mean that they really believe what their quoting."

I didn't say McCain didn't make reference to his faith, I said he never mentioned Jesus and he never referenced scripture, of which Obama did beautifully. My point was that McCain has been a Republican for a very long time, he knows what positions evangelicals want to hear, and he spoon fed them what they wanted to hear all night. But there was no elaboration, no reflection, none of his thought process, nothing really of John McCain the man, just John McCain the candidate and his positions. You could have gotten all of that from a pamphlet. Now, I wonder what McCain would have said if he had been asked about Jesus as the Prince of Peace and McCain's dedication to a life as a warrior? Not that those two are antithetical but it wouldn't have been a cookie-cutter GOP answer.

And yes many can quote scripture, but Obama's references detailed the struggles he has reconciling his beliefs with his duties as an elected official. As Obama has written, he believes that it is the believers' responsibility to convert the truths which one learns from their faith into universal principles which do not require faith to justify. Because as an elected official, he must represent everyone, those who believe, those who believe differently as well as those who do not believe at all, because they are citizens as well. Faith is not compromising, but policy and democracy require compromising. Obama sought to convey his thought process on the issues, rather than simply try to shade his position to pander to the audience, because he is someone who believes that if we can at least understand each other's thinking behind our disagreements, we can more easily find common ground of which to work together from.

"Leaders absolutely face an issue head on AND they don't try to please anyone. But remember, they are LEADERS, which mean they will have support behind them when they do face an issue. Reagan was a leader. Clinton was a leader. Both me faced issues head on and stood their ground."

No, the President of the United States is not a job where you only represent those who voted for you or agree with you, it is one where you represent everyone in the country, so if you have 280 million bosses, you should at least try to make as many of them happy as possible. This is probably the greatest failure of the Bush administration and why I believe Barack Obama is the exact person we need as President. The Bush Administration has run its politics in a manner designed to alienate the opposition and in a time of war, that is dangerous and unacceptable. Politicizing the threat of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, by pushing the war resolution before the mid-term elections was a recipe for taking sides rather than national unity. Attacking the patriotism of those who didn't agree with you on the war or the strategy was designed for pure political gain at the expense of the national unity which is required to sustain a lengthy war effort and has had a significant impact on the country as a whole. Barack Obama is the kind of a politician who listens to everyone, who thinks long and hard about how to get the other side on board, how can we compromise so we can get the most people to buy into a given endeavor. That's Barack Obama, like on the FISA legislation which I strongly disagree with him on, Obama sought to give cover to other Democrats who didn't want to seem disrespectful to the Nominee by voting for the FISA bill when he was against it, so he took the hit for flip flopping for his colleagues because he knew the bill was going to pass with his vote or not. The fact that even though it makes absolutely no sense to think that if the oil companies know we are willing to pay $4 dollars for gas, why would they lower the price if they can drill off-shore when they know there is only so much oil and we're already running out of it. They will continue to charge what the market will bear, but Obama is willing to compromise on oil drilling if it would allow for more investment in alternatives. Not what I would suggest, but Obama believes consensus in a democracy can sometimes be more important than getting your way all the time. That's what we need as a President, someone who doesn't just lead by fiat and preach to the choir, but someone who is willing to make the effort to get as many Americans on board because he understands that we all have to live together, whether we agree or not but it is his job as a leader to facilitate the discussion and look for consensus where ever possible.

"I am sorry to say that there will be no apologies to Mr. Obama and I am standing by this op-ed. You can say what you want about the forum, like McCain heard some of the questions, he had a home field advantage or whatever. The bottom line is that Obama's true beliefs was shown to the world. I agree that he was not arrogant, but his performance was not showing his humbleness."

Finally something we can agree on, I do believe Obama's true beliefs were shown to the world at the forum, his belief in transparency, thoughtfulness and his genuine struggles with his walk and his job as a nominee for President. Many Christians of all denominations struggle with this question of when life begins, whether or not faith-based initiatives work because of the faith or because of the dedication believers bring to their work. Barack Obama is no different from them, he has thought long and hard about bridging the gap between those who share his faith in Jesus Christ and those he seeks to represent who do not share his faith. What I saw in the answers Obama gave was the thoughtfulness, the intellectual curiosity and empathy of which I look for behind the policy proposals and platform positions, when I look at the man who will inhabit the Oval Office for the next 4 years. You may disagree with me on whether those are the things you look for in a President, but hey we've had the last 8 years to see a President who considers himself a warrior first and intellectual second, can we really afford 4 more years of the same in John McCain?

To The Cancerian (I do not want to assume Mr. or Ms.),

With all due respect, you are reaching. There is no hope that sins would be washed away if you confess them. I am not going to put words in your mouth in regards to "unproven higher purpose" because I am hoping that you are not saying what that statement seems to be implying. Also, I hope that you don't think of Jesus as a Zygote, when God told Mary that she was with his son.

Your assertion that Obama said Campaign Ethics Reform...only if wrong. He said BOTH Campaign Finance Reform and Campaign Ethics Reform. I played that tape back a couple of times just to make sure that he didn't simply flub the two.

Your defense of Mr. Obama's answer is interesting to say the least. I personally do not think it would be a big deal had he not four years earlier say [paraphrasing] in a press conference that he was not going to run because of his lack of experience. He hasn't even ran for re-election for his current office yet. It would be nice to see if he had staying power before he aspired for higher office, but I am not going to dispute that this is America and he has a right to run for President whenever he wants.

McCain did make reference to his faith when he was talking about when he was a P.O.W. in Vietnam. As a born again believer, you should know that just because people quote scripture does not mean that they really believe what their quoting.

Leaders absolutely face an issue head on AND they don't try to please anyone. But remember, they are LEADERS, which mean they will have support behind them when they do face an issue. Reagan was a leader. Clinton was a leader. Both me faced issues head on and stood their ground.

I am sorry to say that there will be no apologies to Mr. Obama and I am standing by this op-ed. You can say what you want about the forum, like McCain heard some of the questions, he had a home field advantage or whatever. The bottom line is that Obama's true beliefs was shown to the world. I agree that he was not arrogant, but his performance was not showing his humbleness.