McCain is protesting the accusation, but not denying it. I think it’s safe toassume he knew the questions.
Warren’s statement that McCain was in a “cone of silence,” was at least incorrect. If he didn’t know that factually to be true, he shouldn’t have said it.
I can’t wait to see what the Daily show does with this. “cone of silence”, seriously. This stuff writes itself.
Warren talked about it before the forum began. I heard about it on CBS radio that afternoon around lunchtime.
I’m having a little trouble understanding how Warren wouldn’t have known it to be untrue. If Obama and McCain are friends of his, wouldn’t he have dropped by each to say hello before going on?
I’m having a problem with Warren not knowing McCain wasn’t in the ‘cone’ since he apparently talked about it before the forum began, then again at the top of the show and then AGAIN when McCain came out.
Perhaps the Cone of Silence extended out onto the highway.
Boy, if these guys were stupid enough to cheat on the interview, they deserve to be raked over the coals. My guess is that there will be enough plausible deniability that it won’t be able to be proven. From what I saw, the one question he jumped at with an answer quickest was the one about whether evil exists and what should be done about it. But, IIRC, that was during the second half of the session.
I don’t think it’s safe to assume that he knew the questions. Why would that be safe to assume? Both candidates were given a list of the topics that were going to be discussed, you know.
The topics were very general bullshit like “leadership.” They weren’t given specific questions.
I think it’s safe to assume McCain knew the answers because he had the opportunity and there’s no way his handlers would fail to capitalize on such an advantage. Also, he hasn’t denied it.
Huffington Post published a story today about McCain’s oft-told laugh line about wasteful spending to study bear DNA in Montana, which was repeated at the Warren event:
20 ... MY FRIENDS, WE SPENT $3 MILLION OF YOUR MONEY TO
21 STUDY THE DNA OF BEARS IN MONTANA. NOW I DON'T KNOW IF
22 THAT WAS A PATERNITY ISSUE OR A CRIMINAL ISSUE, BUT THE
23 POINT IS -- BUT THE POINT IS IT WAS 3 MILLION OF YOUR
24 MONEY. IT WAS YOUR MONEY.
What McCain didn’t tell us is that he voted for that bill:
This kind of sloppy deception is going to catch up with him, and very soon.
Hell, Obama admittted it.
They both got a couple of advance questions. Warren says gave Obama three but we now know that Warren is a dishonest source.
The “subjects” were a different matter than the question. the subject lines were very vague.bama did not get the advantage McCain did of being able to watch the first interview in the back of a limo with his bobos taking notes and preparing answers.
Even WITH the advantage, McCain still gave stupid answers and lost the debate. His answer on the abortion question was insane and probably cost him with women.
Just for fun, here’s a transcript of Rick Warren getting reamed in a debate with Sam Harris. You can really get a sense of Warren’s intellectual vacancy in this debate. He actually tries to end on Pascal’s Wager. He is not well educated either on philosophy or science (he’s a creationist too).
At this link, Keith Olbermann does one of his Special Comments blasting McCain for, among other things, whinging about Andrea Mitchel’s “biased” coverage of him by reporting that he was in fact in a motorcade and then a green room, rather than in the so-called cone of silence prior to his stage appearance. You might enjoy it. It’s a rather enjoyable rant, just littered with so hideous little facts that make the media so inconvenient to the right.
Not worth it.
In answer to your original response, I would like to say that the candidate who won it depends on what you like in your candidate. If you like a candidate who works in black and white, with snappy answers and some good stories and jokes, and who doesn’t hold a conversation without making it a stump speech, McCain absolutely won. We’ve had that kind of thing for the past eight years, and while I give McCain a little more credit for principles, he loses a little for seeing just about every foreign policy issue as a nail to be hammered down with the only tool he recognizes - the military.
On the other hand, if you prefer someone who gives articulate, thoughtful answers in a truly conversational style (he was speaking more to the pastor than to the audience), yet despite this dreaded intelligence, has managed to pull a campaign staff together than has had to dump (to my knowledge) exactly one staff member to avoid the appearance of impropriety - a candidate who has kept his messages well focuses tightly disciplined, who in foreign affairs has been far mor in line with the rest of the world’s stands than most candidates than most, Obama won hands down. Obviously the crowd at Saddleback were more compelled by his little his sloganeering, his stump speeches. Intellectual does not actually compare automactially to ineffectuality.
It was not a particularly intelligent crowd. It was kind of a rigged game for Obama.
To me, all I needed to know about that crowd was the lusty applause at the gay marriage answers. Just gross. Life is so short- why spend it being a priggish busybody?
So the two candidates for the most important single job on earth have now danced like trained bears for the Saddleback congregation. Yay America. It is my fervent hope that we see less and less of this, but unfortunately the trend seems to be away from thoughtfulness and toward this kind of sappy, incurious artifice.
Yes, but remember Obama then went on to say that his marriage was secure enought that he didn’t feel it was threatened by the idea of civil unions, nor did he feel any desire for a Constitutional Amendment against Gay Marriage. And you just know any Supreme he nominated would shoot down a court ruling against gay marriage.
He may be quiet and intellectual, but never make the mistake of thinking he’s not a dominant kind of guy. He is. I have a feeling he can chew people up and spit them out before breakfast.
I wasn’t aware that Supreme Court justices decides cases on their own. 
Only *activist * judges can do that.