In light of the excitement and anticipation surrounding Hillary Clinton's speech at this week's Democratic National Convention, some may have missed the short address delivered by Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a few hours earlier. In her short oration, Richards praised Barack Obama's commitment to women's health care and admonished his opponent by pointing out that the presumptive Republican candidate "voted against real sex education, against affordable family planning and, if elected, John McCain has vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade."

She has little to worry about. Roe v. Wade is here to stay and come mid-November, I suspect we will all be referring to her preferred candidate as president-elect Obama. Nevertheless, Richards brought to mind an interesting question: aside from being generally pro-choice and believing that the issue of when life begins is above his "pay grade" (that certainly doesn't leave the rest of us any hope of understanding the issue, especially when he starts earning a president's salary), what do we know about Obama's position on abortion? The most revealing way to answer this question is to take a look at the senator's voting record.

Planned Parenthood is right in endorsing Obama as the candidate who will stand by the organization's principles, most notably, a woman's right to choose. He has repeatedly shown his support for the expansion of abortion rights by, for example, voting against bills that would prohibit tax funding of the procedure. This is in spite of stating at the recent Saddleback Faith Forum that he would like to reduce the number of abortions that take place in this country. But perhaps most disturbing is Obama's record on partial-birth abortion.

Hopeful, fearsome, Riefenstahlian propaganda or choreography of the new world order -- the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics were nothing if not overwhelming. The conventions have a tough primetime act to follow. No sky jogging, no LEDs, no day-glo lycra -- just a man, a mic, and a message. Obama will surely deliver a rousing speech, McCain will sleepwalk through a wooden Minneapolis extravaganza; and then we'll go right back to flash polls and daily sniping.

Made for TV spectacle has a death grip on presidential politics. This is no novel claim or original discovery, but it feels particularly sad and final this time around. Careerist pundits are set on full-thrust vomit mode, so that even the occasional insight is tough to take. Ideas are not valued. Those millions and millions of dollars raised by both candidates need to be spent, and network and cable channels will oblige with a guaranteed ninth inning thriller. 

Just like the O.J. trial created junkies for courtroom entertainment; we now crave the adrenaline rush of the 2000 Gore/Bush election. Both campaigns, the press, poll workers, vote counters and voting machine manufacturers all know that anything goes and anything can happen. What parts of this election will end up in a courtroom? I don't need hope in a candidate as much as I need renewed hope in the process. Any more punditry on my part and the self loathing will finally be unbearable.  So...

As my TV shifted from round-the-clock sports to round-the-clock politics this past weekend, it also did something else.  It lost my interest.

I understand the need for party conventions.  I'm fascinated by them, in fact.  Politics is face-to-face talk, back slapping and hand shaking, not policy memos and staff opinions.  Decisions need to be made, and conventions are where that's done at the highest level.  Deals will be struck and compromises will be reached.  There may even be some hurt feelings.  But that's not what's being covered.

Network coverage of the political conventions has been like watching coverage of a major sporting event, except the on-air personalities are spending all their time interviewing the fans and cheerleaders.  Fluff over substance, like trying to live on a diet of cotton candy.  Feels good in the short term, but probably not the most fulfilling option available.

Want to make it newsworthy?  Embed a camera back stage.  Get some fixed cameras in place in the back rooms and wait for the fireworks, a la CBS' Big Brother.  Find an issue that's actually in contention and cover both sides of the debate.  But don't show partisan speeches and "voting" that's a foregone conclusion and call it news.  It's as much of a farce as the so-called "Live" coverage of the Olympics was last week. 

Professional pundits and those whose opinions carry weight in nationally respected publications have speculated whether Barack Obama's choice of vice president in Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) will connect with voters. Here are a few reasons why I think Obama made a good decision:

1. In choosing Joe Biden, the 2008 Democratic nominee wipes out two previous election cycles' worth of poor choices, i.e., Joe Lieberman, (Lie-berman) emphasis on the "lie" he embodies as a traitor to Democrats and to the values he supposedly brought to Al Gore's campaign; and even John Edwards who, although a strong candidate in and of himself, was not a well-suited intellectual or dispositional match with John Kerry. Senator Biden's temperament matches Obama's as being a well-spoken fighter who's as smart as he is loyal to his Democratic roots.


2. Joe Biden is a better choice for undecided voters than Hillary Clinton.  While pure speculation, maybe independent voters have not staked their claims in Senator Obama fearing the talking points from McCain's camp are true: Obama is too young, inexperienced, untested politically, etc...  Joe Biden deadens those arguments because of his nearly forty year history in the Senate.  Plus, anyone repelled by the Democratic Party because of the Clintons' own history (both before and during this presidential race) won't have to hold their noses at voting both Democratic and casting a ballot for a Clinton.  As for Democrats wishing for an Obama-Clinton ticket, all I can say is, Hillary and Bill Clinton made the divisive bed they're in.  Down goes "Operation Chaos."


3. Joe Biden's working class roots come through when he speaks, despite his coordinating silk ties and high-end business suits.  Although he speaks eloquently, and often for extended periods, he connects with listeners who need to hear something substantial from a politician.  In other words, Biden doesn't wear the "elite" intellectual or "celebrity" mantles that Obama gets saddled with even while Biden's mind sparkles.


4. His uncomplicated, straightforward and clear manner of speaking about foreign policy affairs, especially about the Middle East.  He knows the difference between the Sunni and Shia Iraqi tribes.  He can help you and I understand why it matters.  He is down-to-earth about big issues without dumbing it down, and how many intellectuals can do that?  Further, his son, Joseph Robinette "Beau" Biden III, will be deployed to Iraq on October 3rd.  How many sitting senators have a more active stake in finding resolution to the Iraqi quagmire than a father saying goodbye to his son?One might think a father like McCain would have a similar stake, as his son Jimmy served in Iraq, but apparently he wouldn't mind seeing them stay in the Middle East for another 100 years.  Call me nuts, but Biden's approach to the war makes more sense in every way, including on the level of being a father.

He's the right man for the job.  Like many others this week who have already said as much, Senator Barack Obama has made a wise, politically savvy choice in Joe Biden. 

My friends, with the DNC this week, I thought it might be nice to look into how political blogging can explode on the media.  Let me tell you a tale that is now being affectionately referred to as 'Pizzagate'.

Last Monday, a pizza delivery driver named Anna delivered $30 worth of pizza to a house.  The twist to this is that the pizza was being delivered to Curt Bramble, Senate Majority Leader for the state of Utah.  Mr. Bramble then allegedly began to berate the delivery driver, harass her manager over the phone, and even tried using his position as Senate Majority Leader to force them to accept a personal check.  When they finally agreed to accept a check, it wasn't to his liking, so he then finally put the bill on his American Express card.  All in all, not the best way for anyone to treat someone who provides you food, and definitely not how a political figure should act.

But, the story doesn't end here.  In fact, it just begins.  For, you see, it turns out this young lady is a blogger.  A blogger who let out her frustrations over this in a post, as any blogger in her situation would.  She didn't name names, but she did leave enough clues that it was obvious whom she was writing about.  That's when it hit the fan.

I mix religion and politics every day when I thank God that the United States has a two-term limit for the office of President.

Aside from that secret vice, I adhere to the precepts stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so I was filled with trepidation last Saturday when I sat down to listen to the so-called "debate" between Senator Obama and Senator McCain hosted by Pastor Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church in Orange County.

Though I had heard of Rick Warren's books, I was unaware of the extent of his church's connections with the media, nor was I aware of his discipleship to management guru Peter Drucker.  No matter how warm and fuzzy his religious message might be, this was truly a man with an agenda.

It seems Pastor Rick has a passel of supporters, (his books sold over 25 million copies) as well as legions of detractors. Without a doubt, many of his adversaries appear to be other pastors from even more conservative religious right persuasions, so I guess jealousy has a hand in some of the negative tracts I encountered.

But still I had to ask...how had Pastor Rick done it.... who gave him the go ahead to coerce these two candidates into spilling their guts about their personal religious convictions?  This encounter is unprecedented in American politics and it does not bode well for the preservation of the separation between church and state. 

I don't follow baseball. So it should have come as no surprise that my last-minute decision to quickly check team colors before heading to Petco Park last Sunday revealed that I was - you guessed it - wearing the opposing team's colors. (To my credit, I was wearing Padres blue. But layering it with red resulted in what could easily be mistaken for Philly pride.)

But I should introduce myself as something other than an ignorant sporting event attendee. I am your new conservative KPBS (stop right there - did I just use "conservative" and "KPBS" together?) citizen blogger, and my attendance (sans red layering tee) at a Padres game brought politics, faith, and patriotism into focus. Perhaps there's just something about singing "God Bless America" with 30,000 strangers during the seventh inning stretch that triggers feelings of unity, pride, and yes - true thankfulness. This, combined with the Saddleback Church Civil Forum of the evening before, got me thinking about the place that religious beliefs - anyone's religious beliefs - hold in American politics.

It is important to recognize and practice the separation of church and state. We do not live in a theocracy, and this country was founded on the principle that every individual is free to practice his or her religion. Separating religion and government, however, does not render a candidate's faith irrelevant. Without morality, a government has no reason for existence - what need would there be for law? And as long as morality is an important feature of our nation, so too will the religious perspectives of presidential candidates be of interest. This much is made clear by the attention given to the recent conversations Pastor Rick Warren had with Barack Obama and John McCain

Warren was an excellent moderator, posing serious and thought-provoking questions that went beyond what one might expect during a faith forum. And before we rush to judge Warren's motives, it should be noted that he said in a CNN interview last month that he would not publicly support one candidate over the other. In reading Alma's most recent post, it occurred to me that had Obama and McCain been interviewed by a Muslim imam or a Jewish rabbi (interviews I would find newsworthy and interesting), very few would express suspicion at the motives of the interviewer. If Warren had an "all encompassing mission," as Alma puts it, I believe he made it quite clear: "I think I can set up an environment that people can actually say, oh, so that's what that guy's really like." Why must "Christian" be a code word for "Crusader"? I certainly don't believe that "Muslim" is a code word for "terrorist." But back to the forum...

One way it’s tough to evaluate candidates for office as a voter is from looking at their personal religious beliefs.  Thanks to the First Amendment, we have a secular civil government.  That may be right or wrong, and I know some readers here would argue for wrong, but that's the way the Founding Fathers set up the system of checks and balances, and that's the way the system has worked most of the time during last two centuries. 

Personally, I don't think a person's religious beliefs are part of the equation unless they choose to make them so.  I prefer to look at their proposed policies, and the conclusions about politics and law they reach as a result of those beliefs.  A candidate's experience in implementing policies, and success in competently managing programs, are more important to me than his or her source of inner strength in reaching those accomplishments.

I don't think the topic is off limits though.  It can be very interesting, and telling, to see the labels a candidate can slap on himself in an effort to ingratiate to a specific voting block.  From my perspective, the contortionist act generally backfires.  The more a person's claimed devoutness becomes the central part of their proffered character, the tougher it becomes to see past personal deviations from that claimed faith, like infidelity, eating shrimp, and wearing white after Labor Day.

In polite company, so the saying goes, refrain from speaking about religion and politics.  The two subjects tend to roil deep ideological divides between friends and peers where none were apparent.  In the interest of political conversation, however, perhaps discussing the two topics is a worthier pursuit than silence, especially when contemplating a candidate's character. 

Does the role of religion in a politician's private life transmute into a dangerous public weapon used against his or her opponents? Or does the candidate's religion materialize into a useful tool with which to frame issues of morality, ethics, values, and judgment? 

Alternately, may a modern politician publicly avoid discussing his or her religion without engendering the mistrust of voters? 

Enter Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California's dual conversations on CNN last Saturday with both presumptive presidential nominees.

His premise at the outset of the forum is that "faith is a worldview."  I think by "faith" Pastor Warren means "Christian faith" and by "worldview" he may mean something closer to an all encompassing mission.  The self-proclaimed "values-voters" (a moniker I only use as shorthand reference, wishing it were something else) often is a one-issue voter.  Want to guess what that one issue tends to be?  The big issue probably does not need to be spelled out, but it has to do with sexuality, as do so many other socially conservative issues. 

So, does a modern presidential candidate hurt his chances of election by emphasizing a worldview that does not include his or her "faith," and more specifically, his or her Christian faith? 

Can there be an agnostic or atheist, or Jewish, president of the future United States?  Or have voters created the need for this type of forum because Christianity is the perennial elephant in the room, so to speak? 

The bombs and bullets flying within a far away autonomous region of the Republic of Georgia suggest that George Bush's concept of a global "War on Terror" should be back on the front burner when it comes to Presidential politics.

The domestic debate surrounding our war in Iraq is rightly centered on how we should go about ending things. Withdrawal timelines or pathways to victory? What is a withdrawal, what is a victory?  The candidates will refine their solutions and avoid pinning themselves down in the face of ever-changing facts on the ground. But fading fast to historical background are our reasons for waging war, the very concept of the "War on Terror"" and the precedent it sets for future conflicts.

This election cycle has essentially reduced these issues to a single catchall phrase:  judgment. One man voted for war and one man voted against the war - choose your side and move on to discussions of how to end things neatly. There seems to be a generally agreed upon notion that dwelling on the rational for war is an exercise in crying over spilled milk - what's done, is done -- now is a time for decisive leadership.