By Ken Myers

Ideas, we are frequently told, have consequences. We are less often encouraged to reflect on the equally significant if more elusive relationship of ideas to their antecedents. Ideas come from somewhere, and they are able to take up residence in our lives because they find friendly surroundings. So if bad ideas are plaguing our society (and having bad consequences), we ought to ask about their origins. And we need to ask what it is about the shape of our lives that make bad ideas seem plausible.

* Biden frequently addressed the moderator, while Palin stared steadily at the TV audience. This worked well with Palin's repeated assertion that she and John McCain want to put government back on the side of the people; she appeared to be talking to us while Biden talked at us.

* Despite pre-debate controversy, I didn't sense any unfairness from the moderator.

* Palin will probably be criticized for saying "nucular" just as Bush was.

* Palin may do better with TV audiences than with radio audiences. Not much was gained by watching rather than just hearing Biden, but Palin communicated a fair amount through facial expressions and body language, particularly when talking about energy.

* Biden sounded like a politician, was sometimes confusing, and tended to put the listener to sleep. Palin spoke more quickly than Biden, which made her sound more alert and more intelligent, and was very easy to understand.

* Palin brought up Biden's past - good move. She did her homework.

* My two-year-old daughter watched the debate with me. When Biden discussed Obama and Ahmadinejad, she giggled, copied his hand motions, and chanted "Sit down with friends! Sit down with friends!" I thought that summed it up well...

* 6:00 PM PST - Watching ABC

*6:01 PM - Stephenopolis: "6 out of 10 Americans wonder if Gov. Palin has what it takes to be the VP. " How many Americans wonder the same about Joe Biden? This is clearly a Palin-centric debate.

*6:04 - Biden stated that this bailout is evidence of the horrible economic policies of the last eight years. If true, that makes Barack Obama the second greatest political recipient of these worst economic policies of the last eight years.

*6:08 - Great back and forth about McCain's comment on the "fundamentals of the American economy."  Get the job done. 

*6:10 - I would be interested in your thoughts about Palin's "Joe six-pack" reference?  Palin:  "It is not the American people's fault that the economy is the way that it is."  Biden: "John McCain thought the answer was, tried and true response, deregulate."  I disagree with the governor.  While some people were clearly duped by preditorial lenders, anyone who could surf the internet and was capable of doing basic research on the housing bubble could have seen this disaster coming.  We have clearly been in a housing bubble for several years.  Some of the responsibility for this mess rests on the excited, consumptive habits of the American people.  Contra Joe Biden, government regulation regarding sub-prime loans is what put us in this mess in the first place.  Congress has had regulatory oversight over Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and congressional members on both sides of the isle have been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.  People are people be they on Wall Street or in the halls of Congress.  People need to be honest and the American people need to hold preditorial lenders AND congressmen responsible for their each of these parties' irresponsible actions.

*6:17 -  Palin: $250,000 = a tax on small business.  Great point.

*6:19 - Palin makes a great distinction between McCain's budget neutral healthcare plan and Obama's government mandate and budget heavy plan.  Biden's response that McCain's budget neutral healthcare plan would cost us in taxes does not make sense.  If it is budget neutral, why does McCain have to raise money for it?

*6:21 - Exxon Mobile is only a wedge for people who do not drive cars or do not appreciate driving cars.  Palin seems to have a legitimate critique (based on experience) of the oil companies.  Biden seems to be chasing an oil phantom.  As a side note, Exxon Mobile pays $4,114 per second in taxes.  They posted a net income of $11 billion in 07 which is just a third of the $33 billion which they paid in taxes.

*6:27 - John McCain worked a bi-partisan effort on the recent bankruptcy bill.  Biden:  "Barack Obama saw the glass as half empty."  The evening's headline.

Sarah Palin is the first woman to run in this Presidential election cycle.

That is, she's the first major candidate to run as a woman.

Some female candidates are successful in spite of their femininity. Others, like Hilary Clinton, are successful at the expense of it. Sarah Palin is successful because of it. She's one of those rare women who knows how to be a wife and mother while also excelling in the public sphere--without forsaking any of the unique strengths granted to womankind.

She's exactly the sort of role model my generation needs: living proof that a woman can be smart, savvy, formidable, and womanly all at once. Proof that our place need not be only in the home, but also proof that we can and should be happy there. We've been told too many times that motherhood will restrict us, that the home will swallow us whole. Hilary Clinton tried to show us that women can wield power in the public square. Good--but that success has too often come with a price. Too many women have paid for it with empty wombs, empty homes, and a loss of those unfathomable qualities that separate us from men. We have entered the public arena at the expense of our womanhood. Sarah Palin shows us that we can have the best of both worlds in abundance. Motherhood and statesmanship need not collide. The home does not have to crumble to give way to the state.

Many women have been politicians, but not many of these politicians have been Ladies. Women should certainly strive to be just as successful as men in the public square, but they should do so while retaining the best of their womanhood--they should be Ladies, in the old sense of the word. Success by any other means is more costly than it is worth. Too many women have realized this too late.

Sarah Palin is nothing if not a Lady. And she'll burst through the glass ceiling without so much as breaking a nail.

Three years ago, I was asked by Matt Anderson, then the coordinator of GodblogCon, to help him as his assistant. At the time, I knew very little about blogs except that I had one and it was nothing to write home about. However, I understood that people wiser than myself saw great value in the work being done by bloggers I was willing to help in whatever way I could. Quickly, I learned what all of the buzz was about and I became convinced that bloggers were doing important work.

To date, I have dedicated three years of my life to coordinating GodblogCon. It has been an interesting journey and I have learned a great many things along the way. So it was with a degree of sadness that I announced this past weekend that GodblogCon was to be terminated upon the conclusion of this year's conference. However, saddened as I am about the termination of GodblogCon and all that it has meant to me and others over these past three to four years, my spirit is high at the prospect of the next conference which we hope to grow from the fertile land tilled by GodblogCon. Since Joe was an important part of GodblogCon and since he often shared his reflections about the conference with you all, I thought it would be fitting that I should do likewise.

The internet is full of interesting and amusing things. Periodically, I will feature the interesting and amusing things that come across my desk.

Something Interesting

In a couple of days the Acton Institute will be premiering a film at GodblogCon titled "The Birth of Freedom." The film promises to give an interesting analysis of the relationship between liberty and religion. From their website, here is a brief description of the film:

The American founders said that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights--that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They called this a self-evident truth. Eighty-seven years later, Abraham Lincoln reaffirmed this idea on the Civil War battlefield of Gettysburg. And in 1963 these same words echoed from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial as Martin Luther King, Jr. urged America to fulfill the promise of its founding.

But humans are separated by enormous differences in talent and circumstance. Why would anyone believe that all men are created equal? That all should be free? That all deserve a voice in choosing their leaders? Why would any nation consider this a self-evident truth?

For the millions around the world who have never tasted liberty, the question cries for an answer.

And the trailer:

Something Amusing

For all of us Battlestar Galactica fans, here is an amusing side-by-side:

I'm not saying anything, but I'm glad ours is being compared to President Laura Roslin and not Gaius Baltar, the young, popular, politician for change. (HT: Likely Tales)

My weekly Thirty Three Things post has returned as a regular article at Culture11. You'll be able to find the latest TTT on C11's home page every Tuesday.

Thanks to all the loyal readers who encouraged me to bring it back.

Upon hearing about the government sanctioning Sharia law in the United Kingdom, I was immediately concerned that western law was being subverted in an ally country with whom we share a unique history. There are two levels on which there might possibly be concerns. The first possible concern arises when one compares Sharia law to a traditional, Western sense of justice. The second possible concern arises when this event is viewed from a historical perspective. Upon thinking through these possible concerns, I believe that the first one raises interesting questions that Christians especially ought to consider and the second may actually be troubling.

In his speech on the rise of Islam in the United Kingdom and the coming sanctioning of Sharia law, Archbishop Rowan Williams best draws out the nature of the first concern.  Williams said,

And what most people think they know of sharia is that it is repressive towards women and wedded to archaic and brutal physical punishments; just a few days ago, it was reported that a 'forced marriage' involving a young woman with learning difficulties had been 'sanctioned under sharia law' - the kind of story that, in its assumption that we all 'really' know what is involved in the practice of sharia, powerfully reinforces the image of - at best- a pre-modern system in which human rights have no role.

Off-the-hip criticisms of sharia law, especially in the media, will tend to focus around the easiest elements to critique.  Namely, criticism will focus on the areas where sharia law tends to most barbarically separate from traditional, Western ideas of justice.  The contrast between sharia law and Western law is especially easy to notice when one compares the rights of women within the two systems.   In an election year where Hillary Clinton was almost a presidential nominee for one ticket and Sarah Palin is the Vice-Presidential nominee for another, it seems pitiful that there is still a legal and cultural tradition where a man can divorce his wife via text message while the wife cannot divorce her husband save for impotence or his extended absence. 

Nonetheless, while we believe in the rights of women we simultaneously highly value cultures, especially minority cultures, and their traditions.   We value liberty and the freedoms of those with religious beliefs.  We desire to liberate people from oppressive systems, but we simultaneously believe that we liberate people from oppressive systems so that they may live freely according to their beliefs so long as they are not openly subversive to the state.  At the heart of these beliefs is an interesting tension between free expression and how one chooses to express himself/herself freely.  At the center of the tension are questions about the nature of law which are especially important for Christians to consider.

By Ken Myers

Lately, a lot of what I'm reading has been concerned with how I'm reading, with whether other people are reading, and with how reading influences our inner lives, both our brains and our souls. Nicholas Carr's Atlantic essay, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" (July/August 2008) is an elegant exploration of some of the themes explored by media ecologists. Carr has the feeling, he confesses, that the way he thinks has been changing. It's increasingly hard for him to concentrate on extended arguments presented in books for any sustained period. "I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I'm always dragging my wayward brain back to the text." He reports that many friends and colleagues report the same sensation, and he's convinced that the cause behind this effect is all the time he spends online.

As Carr describes it, the way knowledge is organized and acquired online encourages certain mental habits while discouraging others. And it reinforces a specific model of human knowing, "a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized. In Google's world, the world we enter when we go online, there's little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed."

Today, around the world, many will remember the tragedies of September 11, 2001. Some will remember where they were the morning they noticed frenzied activity on television while a grave looking reporter recapped the shocking events of the morning. Others will remember a morning in Manhattan that was unlike any other; a morning that still weighs heavily on their hearts. Some will tell their story of narrowly escaping death on that fateful day while others will pause in somber remembrance of those whom they lost.

Pundits on the left and on the right will use this anniversary to remind people of the war, their opinions on the Bush presidency, and the direction they believe America ought now to take. I think that this is ok, but only to a point.

Tomorrow, let us debate critical questions of foreign and domestic policy. Tomorrow, let us criticize or praise the efforts of the Bush administration. Tomorrow, let our politicians return to the stump, let them make their arguments, and let the debate of this healthy democracy culminate in the sort of free and fair election that makes America the greatest nation in the world.

But let today be a day of national unity. Let today be a day where we remember those common threads of tradition, values, and principles that make this nation strong even in times of great tragedy and debate. Let today be a day that each and every American is reminded of their own mortality, of the profound blessing of life, and the incredible sacrifice of the courageous.

In memory of those who have gone before us. In memory of those lost on September 11, 2001. May God have mercy on us all.

Author's note: This review was originally published several years ago on another site. I believe this book is just as relevant today as it was when it was first published, so I am posting this here.
--Rachel Motte

Most Christians are more secular then they realize, and this must change if the Church is to have any sort of significant cultural impact. Nancy Pearcey's newest book, entitled Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity, argues that Christians must counter the affects of secularism by developing a comprehensive biblical worldview. This book offers wisdom and hope to the Christian who wants to have a more significant impact for the cause of Christ.

Evangelicals, explains Pearcey, have traditionally thought of salvation only in terms of individual souls. The idea that we are to have a redeeming influence in every area of culture is new to many, and just as many have no idea how to be the redemptive force that the world so desperately needs. People need to learn how to move beyond a merely privatized faith and apply biblical principles to areas like work, business, and politics.

By John Mark Reynolds

John McCain cannot give a great speech, but he has lived a great life. He has done great things, but he wants to do more. Tonight John McCain did well, but Sarah Palin gave the speech everyone will remember. Her soaring rhetoric met her promising reality and caused a national explosion of interest in the Republican Party.

She beat Obama as the most watched speech this year.

That is fine with the Maverick, because he is not known for his rhetoric, but his reality. Nobody can match his reality.

John McCain was inspirational, especially at the end, because he is an American hero running to serve his nation.

His speech was about what he would do and what he believed. It was straight and clear and McCain was unbowed as he gave it. When interrupted by aging protesters, he waved them off, because John McCain has seen war protesters, perhaps even those very same people, before in worse circumstances.

McCain became eloquent as he talked about his desire to serve.

At the end John McCain stopped giving a speech and began to talk about why he wants to be president. If there is one thing you have to believe is that he will, in his words, fight for America as long as he has breath . . . so help him God.

He is a moderate man and has moderate ambitions.

He is a hero, but he has the humility of a man who became a hero by being crushed by adversity. If there was a day when he was hot headed, it is plain that time has mellowed him. John McCain is not the president for anyone who wants great words, but he is the president for Americans who want someone who knows who to fight, when to fight, and where to fight.

He is a quiet fighter for a changed Washington. He is running to be a servant leader and not savior of America.

John McCain did, as he always has, what he had to do tonight. We can be pretty sure that if elected, he will do the same.

When Joe contacted myself and a number of my peers about assuming responsibility for the Evangelical Outpost, my first feeling was one of humility. Though I was sad to hear that he was going to be pulling back from Evangelical Outpost, I was humbled by the honor of being among the individuals whom he trusted to continue the legacy of this great site.

Like many of you, I first met Joe through Evangelical Outpost. I became acquainted with his blog as a result of my work with GodblogCon. When John Mark Reynolds and Matt Anderson were introducing me to the Godblogosphere, they pointed me to Joe Carter as an example of a quintessential Godblogger. I appreciated Joe's humor and the caliber of thought that went into each post at Evangelical Outpost. When I met Joe at GodblogCon in October of 2006, I met a man who was every bit the humorous, insightful, and authentic person his blog entries suggested him to be.

A long time ago I learned that it was vanity to apologize for not blogging. As one longtime blogger famously said, "I hate to be the one to tell you ... but we will survive. Really. With support of my family, I think I will be able to get by the next day or two without an update from 'YourDailyNanoBlogPundit.com.''

Still, I can't help but feel guilty for running off and abandoning this blog without giving an account of what I was doing. So here is my long overdue explanation...

A few months ago I took a job as the managing editor for Culture11, a new online magazine/social network. We launched the site last Wednesday with the goal of building a community around 11 key areas of culture: arts, commerce, community, education, faith, family, ideas, leisure, media, politics, and technology.

One of the reasons we started Culture11 was to provide an online destination where cultural conservatives could reunite content and community. I believe this is the future of new media.

When I started EO (almost five years ago) my network of friends and acquaintances was limited to my neighbors, high school buddies, and my fellow Marines. Because of blogging I was able to establish regular contact with pastors, professors, lawyers, doctors, journalists, engineers, editors, stay-at-home parents, scientists, theologians, etc. While I still maintain contact with these people, the interactions now tend to occur on social networks (socnet) like Facebook and LinkedIn or on social tools like Twitter. Although I still read blogs, my contact with the bloggers now almost always occurs on a socnet; the content and camaraderie have been separated.

Part of the reason for the changes is the emphasis on RSS feeds. Five years ago I relied exclusively on my blogroll to keep up with the blogs I read; now the posts come to me and are saved in my Google Reader. This has led to a shift away from the medium (an individual blog) to the individual content (whether a post, mass email, entry on a Facebook Wall, etc.). The future of the new media, in my opinion, is moving away from personal sites toward online collectives that are focused on particular interests. (The political left has been doing this for years (see: DailyKos) but the other areas of the blogging community have been slow to follow this approach.)

One of the reasons we started Culture11 was to provide an online destination where cultural conservatives could reunite both content and community around both broad topics and niche interests. We're still in the beta stage and working out a few bugs, both in our content and features. we also recognize that we are a long way from rivaling Facebook (though over the next few months we'll be rolling out an number of innovative features). But we believe that we're slightly ahead of the curve and that the future of online activity will move to "planned communities" rather than, for example, the "ghettos" that Christian bloggers have been trying to break out of for years.

However, such a project is built from the bottom-up, rather than from the top-down. Which is why I need your help to make this a reality. I hope that you'll visit and engage in the site. Read, rate, and comment on the articles; create a profile; start and join groups; and most importantly for bloggers, cross-post your blog entries on our "Diary" section (remember to put a link to your site on the bottom so that readers will learn where they can find more).I really encourage you to make this your online "third-place" (even if its your second or third, third place).

You'll also be able to find me there full-time. I'll be doing all of my blogging (real blogging for a change!) on Kuo & Joe, the blog I share with Culture11's CEO, David Kuo.

As for the future of EO, this site will also be moving toward a group content format. My friends at Biola University's Torrey Honors Institute have generously offered to take over and refurbish this blog into an online destination for evangelicals and other Christians. How that vision is implemented is still being fleshed out, but I have the utmost faith that they will transform this site in a way that will be invaluable for the blogging community.

Finally, I want to say that I am incredibly thankful for each and every person who has ever read this blog. God has used your encouragement and friendship to help me achieve successes in my life that I never could have imagined. You are the ones that are responsible not only for giving me a career, but for helping me land the job of my dreams. I can truly never thank you enough for all you have done for me.

Rather than saying goodbye, though, I'm merely inviting you to to follow me as I move to a new neighborhood. Ironically, leaving this blog will mean that my blogging and interaction with readers will increase tremendously. I'll be reading more, linking more, and engaging with you more than ever.

So while I hope you won't abandon EO, I hope you'll join in my new online home. We have a community to build. Let's get started.

Author's note: This is a slightly edited version of an article that was published a few years ago at California Republic . -Rachel Motte

Today's young conservative activists often lack a clear idea of what conservatism means. Drawn by the excitement generated by a popular candidate or policy, many accept conservatism because it has been presented to them in an attractive way, not because they understand that the principles it promotes are true.

This is an easy trap for young people, and calls to mind a passage in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov. The passage describes a man who was so serious about a cause that he was willing to sacrifice even his life for it; yet even with all his fervor, he was unwilling to do the hard intellectual work that would train him to think well and thus defend his cause most effectively.

Students are no longer given a sound grounding in the Liberal Arts in school, so it's no wonder they don't know how to grapple with difficult ideas properly. Like so many other young people throughout history, they fail to think through their decisions and end up fighting fiercely for something they cannot always fully define.

Many college students get involved in politics because they enjoy the social interaction and stimulating environment, not because they fully understand what they are getting themselves into. Those who genuinely do want to make a difference in the world are often like the man described above; they are willing to make sacrifices, but are unwilling to make the most effective sacrifice. Conservatism would benefit tremendously if its young workforce would spend a little less time networking and a lot more time studying the great ideas that define the western civilization they will someday be responsible for protecting.

It has been said that a return to the intellectual rigor that characterized conservative groups in the 1960's is needed to ensure the unity and effectiveness of the movement. There is a lot of truth to this; however, there is also some danger. Student-led campus groups and conservative training organizations have done much to educate young people in the philosophies of conservatism, but fail to get at the root of the real problem facing the movement: Lack of virtue.

The most rigorous intellectual training program in the world is worth nothing if its students do not learn virtue, because it is useless to study the truth unless one is transformed by it. The brightest, most loyal conservative will not be able to make a significant difference in the culture unless he first makes the sacrifices that are needed to learn to live well.
The moral conduct of a leader affects the conduct of those under him. He teaches others how to live -- if he is a righteous and virtuous man, many who support him will follow his example. If he is a corrupt man, his followers may be corrupted. Those who followed the Clinton impeachment proceedings know well that intelligent, well-educated people in positions of power can be very dangerous if their personal lives are characterized by bad conduct. Bill Clinton's affair made it easier for others to justify their own sins, and marital unfaithfulness became even more acceptable to the general public.

Both liberal and conservative leaders have been found guilty of adultery in recent years. I was in high school when I heard of Newt Gingrich's affair, and was shocked that one of the "good guys" had made such an enormous mistake. I know now that such things are no less common among conservatives than among those with whom they disagree.
Conservatives will never be able to make a significant cultural impact if they continue to live badly. Each new generation of activists looks a little less like the one that came before, and a little more like the enemy it opposes. What does it mean for the future of the west when those who love it most are little better than those who want to see it destroyed?

By John Mark Reynolds

Let me tell you about the woman I was lucky enough to marry.

Hope graduated with honors from an excellent private college. She is an outstanding trumpet player and a fine teacher in a private school. She has worked with college students for over a decade helping them become better students and people.

She chose to have four children and is raising them splendidly. Her homeschooling has given them a fine classical education and an appreciation of virtue. She has been involved in putting together support organizations for students like her children and giving advice to new mothers.

She reads widely and keeps well-informed on the issues of the day. She has attended education and philosophy seminars in many U.S. states and several countries.

Almost none of this work has been paid. As a result, she is frequently stereotyped by people who will not bother to know her and insist on measuring the value of work by the size of the paycheck. Her experience in forming organizations, keeping them alive and helping them flourish is discounted, because the organizations were not centered around money-making or governance.

Her wisdom and insight gained from talking to hundreds of young men and women is often trivialized, because she gained it by listening to conversations at a dining room table and not in an office.

People will often assume that she has no interest or knowledge in current events or societal crises, because she did not gain her wisdom in organizational structures that they acknowledge.

This has often made me angry, but she has remained cheerful despite it all. Her success in the social sphere has given her a measure of confidence and she does not get her self-worth from others.

The Three Spheres of Activity

Cultures are built through at least three spheres of activity. The first area of important work is government. The second is business. The third, nearly forgotten by some but no less vital than the others, is the social sphere that includes the family, volunteer work, and all the social services that are not produced by the state or by business.

It is good for a nation when the three spheres interlock and when wisdom from one type of experience enriches the work of another. There is, of course, expertise gained through concentrated activity in one area of activity. The different seasons of a person's life means that he or she will often find himself moving from one type of activity to another. For a few years a man or woman may do mostly unpaid work in the social sphere and in another season paid work in the world of business.

Success in one sphere does not guarantee success in another, but there are rare individuals who can "do more than one thing." Such people should be cherished, because they bring fresh insights to old systems along with their competence. We recognize this easily when an outstanding business leader like Mitt Romney moves from paid employment to the government sector. Business frequently hires aging political stars as Disney did with Senator George Mitchell, chairman of the board in the nineties.

We are not so good at seeing it when an outstanding social and civic leader like Sarah Palin moves into government. We discount everything she did that was not in the governmental or paid business arena.

That is foolish and wrong.

The Sarah Palin Woman

Sarah Palin was part of her family business, a community leader, and became an outstanding political leader. She is star in every area, something people who knew her in each role quickly recognized.

She is the rare talent who can navigate all three worlds (social, business, and government) and can flourish.

She is a quick study and brings to each role the insights gained from other spheres of success. There are truths mothers learn and she learned them well. There are things you learn doing hard physical labor in a family business and she learned those. There are vital insights you gain running social organizations that are not centered in profit and Palin grasped those. There is something you gain when you are the chief executive of a state larger than most nations and Palin flourished there.

Based only on her political experience, Palin would commend herself to America, but that is not all she is. To pretend that this is so is to denigrate the importance of the work of millions of Americans, most of them women. Not all these women can move from one area to another as Palin has done, but they will know how blessed we are to have in Palin a woman who can do so.

Palin brings the home-truths to government, but also governs well. Her government experience is vital to indicate to us that she is ready for this bigger government job, but her outstanding success in civic, family, and business areas should not be discounted or viewed with a patronizing attitude.

She is a person whose life did not consist merely of being an outstanding community leader, family leader, and business leader, but it includes success in all those roles with proven competence in governance.

She is a Renaissance woman, but for some bigots if that breadth of experience was not gained in paid employment or only in government than it counts less or does not count at all. That is offensive, though hard-working women like Palin mostly ignore it and cheerfully go on being awesomely competent.

My wife is one of those millions of women and she sees in many sneers about Palin (reducing this brilliant woman to the "beauty queen") yet another example of some peoples inability to value her experience. The Democratic Party should be warned that they are playing with electoral fire if they act as if all of Palin's life experience is not of value. My wife will not get mad, but she is getting active.

These women organize, they vote, and like Palin they often have large numbers of built-in precinct workers called children.

Let me stress that it is not that they believe that just any individual leader in the social sphere could be president. They do think their experience should not be ignored in the rare case of a brilliant talent who can do both.

Should we be shocked that this is possible? We have long allowed military and business background to be brought to the table. This is natural in the case of military experience since the president (the role the vice president must be prepared to fulfill) is commander in chief, but other experience must count given the present reach of government.

For good or bad, the modern state now deeply impacts the business world. Business leaders rightly rejoice when "one of their own" who understands this impact shows that rare and precious ability to switch spheres of activity and make their concerns known in the halls of governing power. Not all business leaders can manage the switch, as H. Ross Perot proved, but some can.

Mitt Romney, the man I backed for president, was no more qualified by government experience to be president than Sarah Palin . . . if we only count their time in politics. However, Romney's business background was correctly seen as a huge asset by most Americans. He faced little "qualifications" buzz though he was only a one-term governor of Massachusetts.

That was proper.

There should be no double standard for Sarah Palin's equally rich non-governmental experience. The fact that she has not spent her entire adult life in government is a good thing . . . providing we also know (as we do) that she can make the transition.

Does the government impact our social structures and families any less that it impacts business?

Are the skills gained in the PTA, civic leadership in small towns, and in family business of less value than those of the corporate tycoon?

Shouldn't every person rejoice that social policies and decisions will be made in a McCain administration with at least one person at the table who has shown outstanding civic, social, family, and business competence?

Where have we seen such a model for leadership training commended? Palin herself, and the millions of leaders like her, could tell you. Read Proverbs 31 and realize what she did for the years she was not a full-time government worker. Know how greatly a healthy culture values this work. Then stop and be stunned that for a decade and a half Sarah Palin showed that a few of these Proverbs 31 women can also be political dynamite.

Women like Palin do not ask for respect, they earn it. They may not like it when their previous work is denigrated, but they move on. That is wise.

That does not mean that the rest of us have to put up with narrow-minded foolishness that thinks only paid work gives valuable experience, that writing your own autobiography twice is always more interesting than helping run the family business and educating your kids, or that chattering as a guest on Sunday talk shows gives a better education than doing hard physical labor.

A wise culture would look at the sum of Sarah Palin's life and her experience and be thrilled to say:

"Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate."

John McCain has announced his choice for Vice-President. Sarah Palin is McCain's choice for the next president of the United States should something happen to him while in office.

Media outlets are buzzing with stories about McCain's interesting and unexpected nominee choice - here is a quick trip around the horn on McCain-Palin 08:

The Trumpet Resounds

Tim Grieve and Jonathan Martin give voters unfamiliar with Sarah Palin a quick history of the Republican governor from Alaska.

Trumpeting from the Left

Comparing her to Dan Quayle, Kos celebrates the end of an election about "experience," "Obama is not ready to lead" attack lines. Those are dead... Palin is also a an ideologue, on choice, on the environment, on energy -- all the way down the line. This an ideological pick...McCain has abandoned any notion of playing for the center. He's looking to shore up his right flank and hoping that the Evangelical Right can somehow drag McCain over the line."

Joshua Marshall at Talking Points Memo echoes Kos line about experience adding that Palin enters the race with baggage that could weigh McCain's campaign down. "It's a daring pick but I think a very weak pick. I'm perfectly happy with it. Palin is in the midst of a reasonably serious scandal in her home state. Her brother-in-law is a state trooper who is in the midst of an ugly custody battle with her sister. And she's accused of getting the state police to fire him."

Clinton campaign adviser Howard Wolfson notes the stinging question: "... you are going to have a lot of women voters wondering why Senator Obama didn't tap Senator Clinton as his running mate.

Trumpeting from the Middle

Jonathan Martin gives the upsides and downsides of a Palin pick. Upside: "Palin is a strong conservative, opposing abortion rights and enjoying a life membership in the NRA." Downside: "She has no foreign policy experience whatsoever. She's also entirely untested on the national political stage."

Klause Marre at The Hill believes that Palin is a "high-risk, high-reward" candidate. It works to her benefit that she is outside the Beltway (way outside the Beltway) but she disagrees with McCain on ANWAR and supports drilling in that region.

Trumpeting from the Right

Fred Barnes gives a celebratory narrative of the relatively unknown governor. According to Barnes, Palin was the star born in the 2006 dark night of conservative politics: "The triumph came in Alaska where Sarah Palin, a politician of eye-popping integrity, was elected governor. She is now the most popular governor in America, with an approval rating in the 90s, and probably the most popular public official in any state. Her rise is a great (and rare) story of how adherence to principle--especially to transparency and accountability in government--can produce political success."

Katherine Jean Lopez at National Review poignantly notes that any charge of inexperience leveled against vice-presidential pick Palin can be reflected back to Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama. The media is in a quandary. Lopez seems happy with the tap saying, "That's what authentic authenticity looks like."

Michelle Malkin is "impressed. Very impressed." She is tracking responses from the right.

Blowing My Own Horn

I agree with the buzz that McCain's pick re-affirms his reputation as a maverick.

I am concerned that Palin does not bring many (if any) key battleground states such as Colorado or Michigan firmly into the McCain camp which would have happened in the event of a Romney or Pawlenty nod. However, I do not resonate with celebration on the Left about the death of the "experience" attack line.

Defined by experience, clearly there is a mentor/mentee relationship occurring on both tickets. However, the Republicans are not running their mentee as the presidential candidate. The vice-presidency has traditionally been understood as a preparatory role for the presidency. Therefore, it seems appropriate that John McCain would choose to groom a young, conservative star for the presidency by tapping her to be his VP nominee.

One final thought which I have not seen in the blogosphere as of yet. I am energized. I am a young, evangelical, conservative voter and I did not expect to be so energized by McCain's vice-presidential choice. However, Palin is a woman who has a right philosophy of life and family issues. She glows with the kind of youthful authenticity that gave the pre-Rezko Obama his appeal. She fights oil companies where it makes sense to do so but does not bow before the altar of those who forget that nature is ours to steward, not worship.

I am energized. My conservative friends who are politically savvy are energized. People unfamiliar with her who find out about her story and her political philosophy become energized. Wake up Republicans, wake up conservative evangelicals, it is a new day.

The fact that the American people will seriously consider electing this bright man with his awesome family is even better news. This is a great moment for America.

Sadly, the candidate and his speech did not rise to the moment, though he had the talent to do so.

In part he was betrayed by the setting. The "stadium stunt" might have looked good for one evening, but this was a moment for history and it was far too rock concert for a history making moment. Somebody stripped their candidate of dignity by surrounding him with losing presidential candidates and aging rock stars.

Obama is a dignified man, but this was a speech in a football stadium.

Technology makes this the era of the repeat viewing and this speech is not worth playing and replaying. It was built for one night and for one night it might work well, but it was too airy and too angry to last. The text is airy in general and like many bad political speeches is dominated by promises nobody could keep. The most substance in it is in the attacks on McCain. There is less hope and change in it, which was necessary, but the dark picture of last eight years is disproportionate to the reality.

In the end, I think this speech will end up leaving a bad aftertaste for many people the way the Star Wars sequels felt the morning after viewing. Like the films, it was loud, up to date, and fun, but it also suffered from hack writers, weird supporting characters (Biden!), and too great a sense of its own importance.

However much fun you had in the theater that night, soon, all too soon in most cases, you felt manipulated and worried that there was not more there there. This Obama speech will turn on most viewers the same way. Fireworks. Hooplah. Whatever.

McCain made Obama the "celebrity candidate" and Obama got angry. He lashed back tonight, a major mistake. The vice-president attacks, but the presidential candidate is above it all. Compare the kind advert that McCain played tonight praising Obama for making history with the red-meat rhetoric Obama used on McCain.

It was beneath Senator Obama and did not elevate him or effectively tear down McCain. I predict that McCain will save his tough rhetoric for terrorists and dismiss Obama gently. Obama should have treated McCain with kindness like a father a bit past his time.

Will Obama win?

He should because it is a Democratic year, but this speech and this convention will have been of little help in doing so.

By John Mark Reynolds

College presidents are not always wrong. Here is one they get right: Americans should rethink our polices toward alcohol and young adults.

Eighteen year old adults should have the legal choice to drink in this culture.

College faculty and administrators know that thousands of college students abuse alcohol, but that thousands more do not. They understand that making an act criminal and restricting the liberty of citizens to act as they wish, even to act badly, requires very powerful reasons. Traditional Christians should agree with this legal modesty based on centuries of experimentation with different levels of restrictions on bad or unwise behavior.

Why Small Government?

Small government is best. Fallen men cannot survive with no government. Anarchy is bad, but totalitarianism is worse. Even a hug from big government can hurt and absolute power can corrupt the best of men.

Most traditional Christians believe, even if they sometimes forget, that God has given each human being liberty. God let Adam disobey him. If a God who could have stopped men from making bad choices does not always do so, then it must be better so! In this age, God has often given men the freedom to defy Him openly. Of course in the end, every deed will be judged and justice done, but not yet. Christians should not rush to give the state powers that God is not using Himself at this time.

It is obviously dangerous when one group of fallen men forces another group of fallen men to do what the first group believes to be right. Using force to make a man conform threatens precious God given liberty.

Of course, liberty is precious, but not priceless. It is not the only good, though it is very good. Sometimes in the complicated and messed up world we live in this side of Paradise, some other good, like the survival of the community, forces a Christian to agree that men must be made to act as they should by force of law.

This decision is, however, a grave one.

Alcohol Not Worth Bigger Government

The social gains from banning all adults of a certain age from drinking are not worth the cost to liberty. Alcohol use is not a sin for most Christians. For most Christians moderate drinking is a harmless pleasure. Of course, like many pleasures it tempts some to overindulge and alcoholism is very serious. The abuse of alcohol is bad and many adults are prone to this fault.

It might be unwise for many adults to drink, but surely few should wish the state to begin banning all unwise actions. Most of us who have our share (or more!) of folly would scarcely be able to move under such a regime!

This true even for the minority of traditional Christians that think the consumption of alcohol is immoral. Even if true, this would only prove that drinking is the sort of act that it might be good to ban it not that it should be. Long experience shows that laws often do as much harm as good. Sadly, Evangelicals supported an experiment in constitutional alcohol prohibition in the last century. It was a notable failure.

Law and Morality

Nothing moral should be illegal, but not everything that is immoral should be criminal.

Every time the state removes a choice from citizens, it risks making children of them. A republic depends on people who can make moral decisions for themselves. If we cannot, the state will not long survive no matter what laws are made. The power given to the state in order to enforce laws is also dangerous. The more laws, the greater the police power of the state. Any good done must be weighed against this grave potential threat to liberty.

Conservative Christians, who have been martyred in the millions by abusive state power in the last century, have no reason to trust expansive state power. In very grave situations, such as abortion which takes an innocent human life, we support increasing legal restrictions on bad choices, but it does not follow that we should support every such restriction.

Alcohol Abuse Is Bad, But the Alcohol Law Is Not Wise

I am not naive about the harm alcohol abuse can cause on a college campus. For some people the temptation to abuse liquor is overwhelming. Once addicted, the alcoholic is in trouble and nobody who works with students takes that lightly. It always makes me sick to see the stupid decisions made under the influence and the years wasted by those who cannot control their drinking. For many, a life of abstinence from all alcohol is the best choice.

At eighteen, an American is an adult and the law is not the best way to prevent unwise drinking by adults. Too often it turns a pastoral problem into a legal one. There is little evidence that it does much to prevent the binge drinking all too common amongst young adults. There is some evidence that by forcing this choice underground, it creates a culture that encourages abuse.

It is illegal for all Americans to drink and drive and this will continue. It is illegal to serve drinks to minors and this should and will continue. Mothers should continue to be against drunk driving and minors drinking, but eighteen year old Americans are adults. If we have decided eighteen year old Americans are adults, then we should give them adult liberty.

As many have pointed out, at eighteen an American can die for his country and vote in an election, but is not deemed responsible enough to make his own decisions about the use of alcohol.

While young adults are apt to make bad choices with serious implications for the rest of us, such as driving under the influence, the best way to deal with this situation is not through police power. I see no evidence that there are any behavioral gains that could not be achieved through education. Driving drunk will remain illegal, but allowing college age drinking to come out from underground may actually help spot bad drivers in some cases.

This is unreasonable.

Parents, Students, and Universities Can Still Choose To Be Alcohol Free

Adults do not have a right to drink, but adults should be allowed to do so if they wish. Just because I think a choice should be legal does not mean a person should act on that choice!

I have a son who will turn eighteen in October. He is a fine young man and will vote this fall for the first time. What compelling interest keeps him from making his own choices about alcohol? Of course in some ways he is making them already and did so in the most obvious way in his choice of a school.

There will always be places, like my own university, that choose to be "dry" (alcohol free). The beauty of a free society is that such choices are possible. I enjoy working in a school where every university social event is not centered around alcohol. Thousands of students also appreciate having this choice and will continue to make it if the laws are changed. Such schools will continue to provide a dry option for parents and students who wish it.

Just because it becomes legal to drink, it does not mean private universities will have to change their policies. My son chose to attend a "dry" school and abide by the rules. The vast majority of our students like having an educational home that is alcohol free.

Evangelicals who wish should continue to support those options, but vote to treat our young adults as adults when it comes to choices about alcohol.

(I will have good friends who disagree with me on this issue and I will keep listening to their arguments. This is my view and necessarily that of my school or my co-workers.)

By John Mark Reynolds

I have longed for it, wanted it from afar, and envied my friends who owned it. I can only thank God that the Bible forbids coveting my neighbor's ox and not his iPhone or I would have been in big trouble. Fortunately the strength of this particular exegesis was not long put to the test. Due to the unlamented passing of my Palm Treo 650, the single worst phone ever conceived in the hearts of wicked engineers, I have been able to get a black 8 gig iPhone.

It sits before me now and it is beautiful.

My old Treo was clunky like a Star Trek communicator from the original series without the cool flip up antenna. It tore many a jacket pocket with its weight. One could count on it crashing every five minutes or so when one demanded unreasonable things from it like receiving phone calls or keeping my schedule. Getting it to sync with my Mac was always hard and I had to get special software to do the job.

The iPhone did everything, or almost everything, I wished right out of the box. Here are five observations after my first week of ownership:

1. Battery life is poor when using the Net or updating mail. In just a few hours of heavy use, I was running out of juice. The Treo was slower and rarely made it to the Net without crashing a few times, but once there it drained the battery comparatively slowly.

This is the greatest flaw I have discovered.

2. The phone connects to the world easily.

Getting the phone to sync with Google mail is easy. Getting it to sync with Google calendar was harder, but was done in a few minutes.

Of course it is easy just to go on-line to check both services, but I prefer not to always have to do so.

Wireless connections were easy to set up. Web browsing was fast in both wireless and 3G modes. It is not my home cable modem, but it has made web use in the car (for finding my location, movies, and other information) possible.

It worked perfectly with my computer which is to expected since I use a Mac, but it still was a pleasure to use a piece of technology that required no set up after I got home from the store. The phone has yet to crash or show any software problems.

3. The phone works well as a phone. My reception was equal to any other wireless in our house, including fairly expensive phones without other features.

4. The touch screen is easy to use and soon learned to cope with my clumsy fingers. For someone like I am who cannot see very well (which makes typing hard and proofing harder), this phone is a blessing. It magnifies areas and this feature makes it easier to use in some situations than my laptop.

5. Video, picture, and music use is an added bonus. I have to commute often and this allows me to leave other devices at home. I did not get the iPhone to listen to music, watch videos, or show family pictures to friends, but enjoy doing so. This was not something I wanted to do, but the phone is changing my behavior by showing me new abilities.

Now we must all learn good iPhone etiquette to avoid boring our friends with vacation pictures or videos in even more places!

By John Mark Reynolds

Chatting about expectations is a political junky's game. Looking for a fix of actual news at the Convention, you will hear many things about the Democratic National Convention (DNC) most of which will turn out to be false in retrospect. For sane voters--most of whom will watch the Biden and Obama speeches and little else--the substance and the abiding visuals of the Convention are what will matter most.

There are five things to look for at the DNC (and just after) which will tell you whether the Convention was a success.

First, follow the Clinton money after the convention.

The idiotic spin that the Convention is about unity is setting a bar so low that the DNC cannot fail. The Clinton machine cannot afford to look like they killed Senator Obama. They will back him with loud words. This will be viewed as "success." You could get rich if a friend would give you a dollar for every time a podium speaker says "this party is united."

Bluntly, any large scale disunity visible to the viewer would so doom Obama that one must assume he will have it in check.

How do you know if real unity is achieved? Look for the small stories right after the DNC that talk about whether Clinton donors have opened up their wallets. If not, there is no real unity and the Clinton apparatus is trying to quietly knife Obama.

Second, look for the killer visual error that the old media loves immediately but which the new media turns clownish.

The best example is John Kerry coming to the podium with a salute. This looked good at the moment, but did not wear well with repeat viewings. Pols and their helpers still plan Convention tricks for the pre-video on demand era. They do things that look good once, but look silly on repeat viewings. It is the difference between the ability of the Old Star Trek to run in a stunt double for Kirk which they could assume that nobody would catch in one quick viewing (and nobody thought much about syndication then) versus the Whedonesque (Buffy, Angel) assumption that each episode would be viewed many, many times.

Think wedding videos. Hammy and "of the moment" ceremonies wear very badly (become camp!) on repeat viewing. Oddly, highly controlled traditional ceremonies wear well. Obama better find a Cranmer fast to control any desire to look "trendy" or do "cool" things at the Convention that end up looking (after a few weeks) like Mom's "Princess Moonbeam" dress or Dad's leisure suit in the old wedding pix.

Today you must run your Convention with the viral video in mind. No hammy salutes or chants that look good the first time but cloy on repeated viewings.

Third, count the references to the Clinton administration in non-Clinton speeches versus self-referential praise in Clinton speeches.

Many words of praise of Clinton governance (not just to the Clintons personally or to the "hard fought" primary campaign) in the "other guys" speeches means healing has happened on the Obama side. Will Obama praise the nineties? Ignoring the governance (as opposed to the personality of Clinton) will make Bill very mad and means there is still anger on the Obama side.

Many references to how Clinton governed in the Clinton speeches (where the Obama folk would like them eliminated) means healing has not happened on the Clinton side. President Clinton is his administration and Senator Clinton is his stand-in, so if the He and the She still feel the need to point out that they ruled well, then both are angry.

Their anger will kill Obama in places like Pennsylvania.

Fourth, wait for Biden to say something stupid.

If he doesn't, Senator Obama is saved until the next time we notice Biden . . . which may not be until the Veep debates.

If he does, Senator Obama will look very bad for passing on Senator Clinton at just the wrong time.

Finally, the most important moment of the Convention, perhaps the only important moment, is the speech by Senator Obama.

Here we can assume that Obama will get the speech just right . . . but that the choice of venue is his big problem. He may not be able to solve it. The immediate visuals will be great and the television talking heads will praise them, but the totalitarian Olympic spectacle that just ended is a big problem for Senator Obama. He may not be able to win with the long term visual impact of his choice to speak in a stadium.

Republicans should pray for a loud and hyperactive audience of Obama acolytes who begin the weird "O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma" cry early and often. McCain's best coup of the campaign so far (other than the Biden pick) was to turn that chant into a cue to the American people of "celebrity worship."

People forget political speeches. They will not forget seventy-odd thousand adoring leftists. The speech in the stadium made no sense when he first announced it, but now it is a McCain commercial waiting to happen. Success for Obama will be giving a speech to an intent stadium that is enthusiastic without being weird. Success is few if any camera shots of young adults for Obama with cult-like adoration. Success is getting out the stadium as quickly as possible.

*Note: This post is being republished courtesy of John Mark Reynolds and the Scriptorium Daily*

Beltway reaction to the pick of Slow Joe Biden proves that commentators who spend too much time near the center of power lose their grip on what the rest of the country is thinking. (Is there any senator who does not think picking another senator is a sign of wisdom?)

Most of the rest of us in both parties are gob smacked, "Is that the best he could do?"

Those of us who have a fond spot for Senator Obama (and I do) know Senator Obama is very bright and full of ideas. It is disheartening that his only real chance at a presidential level decision was to elevate a serial plagiarist whose self-regard is matched only by his lack of discipline.

For most Republicans I know (who are outside the Beltway) the reaction to the Biden pick was glee . . . and laughter. Joe Biden is, how shall we say it charitably, one of the more clownish men to ever run for the presidency. One is thankful for clowns, some children seem to love them, and they brighten up multiple candidate debates, but Slow Joe got about fifteen actual votes in this years primaries for a reason.

Voters laughed with him, but also at him and so did not want him too near the levers of power.

However, Senator Biden has survived for a long time with power in Washington. This means he is officially Redeemed and Wise in the eyes of those who live only for political power. Wise in Washington-speak means old and powerful. After one wins a few cycles or survives a few scandals (see Biden), then one is automatically elevated to the pantheon of the All Knowing.

If Dan Quayle had stayed in the Senate, he too would now have been Redeemed and Strangely Smarter. Quayle's "mistake" was giving up political power thus freezing the last judgment made of him. Washington hates a loser and quickly forgets anyone who goes home.

Any long serving dim wit eventually gets New Respect. The worst case of this in my own party had to be the relic of segregation Strom Thurmond . . . a Democrat turned Republican turned monument to longevity that earned Strange Respect by simply living long enough that the evil he did started seeming quaint.

The transformation seems to operate on one simple assumption:

Nobody could be that bad who manages to stay in the Senate forever!

If your thinking is all power centered, then there is truth to it. Senator Biden is good at staying in office, hires a good staff that writes good briefing papers for him, and is a good talker. He is an enjoyable lad about town and says unpredictable things on the record, which makes him popular with the press.

The press often confuses verbal incontinence with intelligence in a politician.

Like many lads about town he gets forgiven by cultivating a perfect NARAL score, which means he gets a Free Pass for all the horrifically politically incorrect things he says which would sink someone who had not sold their vote to the inquisitors of the left.

If you doubt this analysis, see how often Biden is allowed to speak without briefing papers, handlers, or a teleprompter near for help. Let's see how well he, not his staff but the Senator, knows his business. He will give a great convention speech, because someone will write a great speech for him. He will read it well and his wisdom confirmed until he speaks once again without a script.

Biden is proof that Washington often confuses gravitas with endurance.

The effect of gravity on Biden is not gravitas. The press will love him, because at any moment he may insult some new ethnic group. Obama has entertainment covered at the convention.

John Mark Reynolds is the founder and Director of the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University. John Mark is also a contributor to the Washington Post and Newsweek column On Faith.

If elected president, Barack Obama has chosen Joe Biden to assume the office of President should something happen to Obama.

Media outlets are buzzing with stories on Obama, Biden, and Obama-Biden. Here is a quick trip around the horn:

The Trumpet Resounds:
Alexander Burns and John F. Harris provide a sketch of Biden for those unfamiliar with him or his record.

Trumpeting from the Right:

Hugh Hewitt agree's with the assessment of Biden that he is the "stupid person's idea of a smart person's candidate." Hewitt argues that picking Biden means that, "Obama has added to his unsteady candidacy an epic amount Beltway cluelessness and arrogance unsupported by anything except frequent flier miles and Delaware's love for a chuckle-headed fellow with a big smile." Cliff the Mail Man for Vice-President.

Proving that he understands the language of Obama's core support demographic, Washington Post On Faith columnist and Scriptorium Daily contributor John Mark Reynolds says "LOL" to Obama's seemingly unwise choice. Noting the unique role that a Vice-President can play, Reynold's says, "You look all over America able to choose the person (other than yourself) most fit to be President of the United States. It is a primary with one voter and you can choose your own Socrates, since he need not win over the masses." Instead of choosing Socrates, Obama chose Empedocles.

The editors at National Review Online question whether Obama's choice of Biden for VP leaves any hope for change in Washington.

Trumpeting from the Left:

Mike Allen quotes Obama spokesperson Linda Douglass who attempts to refute the notion that Biden eliminates any hope for change in Washington. According to Douglass, ""He's stared down dictators all around the world. He has decades of experience in Washington and, yet, uniquely, he is not of Washington...He is the perfect person you could try to find to get away from the failed policies of the Bush administration. He is an independent thinker. Joe Biden, as you well know, has never been at a loss for words."

At the Daily Kos they see Biden as a strong choice for Obama. Noting that Obama did not merely want a "yes man" Kos references this Obama quote, "I want somebody who is independent. Somebody who is able to say to me, 'you know what, Mr. President, I think you're wrong on this and here's why' and will give me (applause) who will help me think through major issues and consult with me, would be a key advisor." Joe Biden certainly does not seem to be one who would merely say "yes."

Finally, James P. Rubin argues that Joe Biden is the right man at the right time. According to Rubin, Biden's "foreign policy experience and wisdom are unmatched in American politics. There is no one in Congress who has been around as long, who understands the international realities better, or whose judgment has proven sounder than Joe Biden's."

Blowing My Own Horn
Barack Obama's VP pick confirms my suspicion that Barack Obama is the biggest thing in his universe. Biden has useful political experience and foreign policy gravitas, but his gaffe prone long-windedness and his inability to excite more than 1% of Democrat voters in this last primary means that he will not overshadow Obama. While it is commendable of Barack Obama to pursue someone who would not be a "yes man," especially in the area of foreign policy, there seem to be other individuals who fit this bill. Why did Obama not choose Bill Richardson whose has as much political gravitas as Biden with a much more diverse resume and who would have put the battle ground state of New Mexico in play?

McCain supporters have reason to be of good cheer.

Dustin Steeve is a graduate of the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University. Dustin worked as an Assistant Producer for the Hugh Hewitt Show and was also the Administrative Editor for the ScriptoriumDaily.com.

I've been amused by recent speculations that Barack Obama may be the antichrist. After Saturday's candidate forum at Saddleback Church, I think we can safely say that he isn't. That would be too far above his pay grade.

Rick Warren is also not the antichrist, though the numerous outcries against him online before the event may have lead some to suspect otherwise. Most will know better now.

And John McCain? He is authentically himself, unmoved by public perception and uniquely unchanged by his candidacy.

Warren could easily have made himself the highlight of the Saddleback event, but he didn't. He could have easily asked safe questions designed to make his audience love him, but he didn't. He asked his questions, left very little "wiggle room" for his guests, and neatly stepped out of the spotlight. It was nicely done.

Despite repeated assurances to the press that Warren would stay away from issues-based questions in this forum, he hammered out direct and difficult questions about such issues as abortion, marriage, taxes, and stem cell research without hesitation or compromise. His direct, no-nonsense wording gave the silver-tongued Obama pause, despite the friendly tone in which the questions were asked. If Obama stumbles when answering a jolly and welcoming Rick Warren, I cringe to imagine how he'd do as President when faced with less hospitable interrogators. I have no such fears about John McCain, who had no difficulty in conversing with Mr. Warren. This event was clearly easier for him than for Mr. Obama.

I fully expected Obama to dominate the evening. This was the sort of event that Obama and his brand (for he has been marketed as a brand) have been molded for. His easy-going demeanor and impressive rhetorical skills are ideally suited to this format, often leaving the less polished but more authentic McCain at something of a disadvantage.

I was wrong. Obama's distinct failure to answer most of Warren's questions looked shoddy and unprofessional when compared to McCain's short and direct answers. While Obama gave long, rambling responses and even admitted his inability to answer the abortion question, McCain's every answer seemed to challenge Warren, as if he were thinking, 'That was hard? Is that the best you've got?'

Obama is polished (though much less so at this event), but McCain is Real. The generation raised on myspace and youtube may be largely unable to make this distinction, but time will show them that Obama's digital flair cannot compare to McCain's real-life experience and convictions.

Mr. Obama has talked at length in previous forums about his ability to bring people together. In reality this means that he has an inability to displease his audience. He needs to be liked. This is useful in a candidate, but fatal in a President. He excels in the art of sounding good while saying little, and his refusal to take a firm stance on almost anything in this forum will not help him gain the vote of those who were actually listening.

John McCain has no such qualms. He is well-known for being unafraid of what people think of him. This is not always a desirable quality in a candidate, but it is absolutely necessary in a President. Let Obama remain a candidate for a few more years--he's good at it. John McCain, on the other hand, is ready to be President.

Rachel Motte serves as the Political Links Editor for ScriptoriumDaily.com. She has interned in Morton Blackwell's office at the Leadership Institute and in former Congressman Jim Ryun's office on Capitol Hill. She is a graduate of Biola University, the Torrey Honors Institute, numerous Leadership Institute schools, and has been a student at the World Journalism Institute. She blogs at http://wheatstoneforum.com .