Even the liberal DailyKos declared McCain the big winner in last sat. faith debate. <link>. And posted how embarrased they were at Obama's poor perfomance.

And now it turns out that it was OBAMA who had questions given to him in advance...lol <link>

Call me obnoxiously philosophic but....it seems to me that almost by definition, there can be no winners and losers in a faith "debate". In fact...I might suggest that if were possible to lose, one could only do so by claiming victory!

in issues debates. I fully expect McCain to be sportin' a shoulder blade bulge like W's when the real debates start.

(which truth be told, was photoshopped), I'm not seeing that that approach would work with McSenile. His marginal sensory and intellectual faculties would probably render it useless. I'm picturing more...a version of Garret Morris's (from the old SNLs) "News for the Hearing Imparied".

I suspect that one can "lose" a debate on faith by not toeing the strict evangelical line.

But....since "faith" in the common and current context, is confined to those things we believe but that can't be proven...what's to debate and what's to "score". What's there to argue about? Am I suppose to "prove" that you don't believe what you say you believe?

I think the idea that the candidate's faith should somehow decide an election is evil.

I look at it all slightly differently...with the emphasis on "slightly". If we'd consider what we Americans believe at our cores (spiritual or otherwise), I think we'd find that we have almost infinintely more in common than we are at odds. So...these debates over the picayune, are silly.

spreadsheet:

I look at it all slightly differently...with the emphasis on "slightly". If we'd consider what we Americans believe at our cores (spiritual or otherwise), I think we'd find that we have almost infinintely more in common than we are at odds. So...these debates over the picayune, are silly.

True... and wise.