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? 

Is it fair to label John McCain's presumptive presidential nomination as tantamount to Bush's third term in the White House?  I thought about this recently after seeing a bumper sticker proclaiming the message.  The McCain camp has also taken notice of this particular line of attack on their candidate's viability.

The matter interests me because if the senator from Illinois hopes to win his bid for the highest elected office, won't his political strategists and advisors need to understand what draws an undecided voter toward Senator McCain as much as away from him? 

The bumper sticker routine, I believe, simply won't work on voters already likely to vote for Senator Obama.  These slogans attempt to discourage the undecided, as well as those leaning toward McCain.  But does this particular insult work in that vein?   

The most obvious premise of the message taps into Bush's increasingly high disapproval ratings.  Since a majority of Americans have repudiated any support Mr. Bush gained before his last term in office, the thinking goes, extending his stay would be political failure.  This idea, however, "preaches to the choir" and probably won't serve to sway voters.

I hereby declare a week long moratorium on all political news that is dispersed through the Fourth and Fifth Estate; by this I mean newspapers, magazines, network and cable television, radio, streaming video, and blogs.  I command Arriana Huffington, Kos, Slate, et al, to go on a weeklong vacation, preferably where they can get some sun. Effective, immediately, Fox is banished off the air; in fact, they will be shut down indefinitely as punishment for crimes against truth.  Imagine, a week without the smarmy presence of Sean Hannity and his ever-changing cast of airheads. Gosh, we would be free from the nasally harangue of Greta and the bottom feeding antics of Nancy as well) All right...no John Stewart for me even though everyone knows he's just a comedy show...right?

 No Glen Beck, no Katie regurgitating manufactured "facts", no Stephen Colbert coddling cracker musicians, no foolish John McCain campaign videos, no using my campaign donations to counter his nonsense, no Paris Hilton videos, though I have to say you were the high point of the week, dear. 

I can't help but think that Republicans would like to have "do overs." This is the sorriest presidential campaign that I have ever witnessed. John McCain has managed to parlay his war hero status into a political career for the last 20 years, but this time the stakes are too high. Can we really afford to have such an angry, rancorous man the White House?

His repeated assertions that Obama "would rather lose a war than lose an election," make McCain look like some sort of Archie Bunker throwback, only we knew that Archie was a sitcom character, not a candidate for president of the United States. Can you imagine if he were to carry this bilious behavior to the international arena, leading by testy insinuation. Pretty scary stuff considering the memory lapses, coupled with his computer illiteracy, in the age of global media. Does John McCain even grasp the significance of his deficiency in 21st century skills? I think not or he would never have copped to it.

By the way Senator McCain, what would  "winning" in Iraq look like? If the country is "stabilized" and they want us out, what can be gained by continuing the nightmare. Recently you have stated, " I know how to win wars."  Which war was that, sir? My own father, who served four tours in Vietnam, wore a T-shirt, at home, that read "Southeast Asian War Games Participant -- 2nd Place". So surely you don't mean Vietnam. 

At Comic-Con this weekend the husband and I sported pins supporting Lucy and Charlie Brown for President. Harvey Dent's campaign for district attorney was well-represented based on the pins and T-shirts on display.

Given my disdain for the two-party system, one T-shirt suggesting a vote for Cthulhu (why settle for the lesser evil?) was particularly thought-provoking.

But Comic-Con is all fun and games (and big tourism revenue), right? 

Senators McCain and Obama were both in town in recent days to discuss immigration and their visions of "comprehensive reform." Apparently they both think they can bend the next Congress to their wills and implement their proposals, whatever they are.

I doubt it.

I don't doubt their sincerity to address a tough issue, just the ability of either candidate to achieve a consensus as to what the problem is and how to address it.

I'm really surprised by the amount of press coverage lately on the Libertarian party.

From Jesse Ventura being interviewed on Al Jazeera to even Time Magazine doing an article on the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr. It's all rather interesting, to say the least. The current trend, in most news articles, is that the media is gearing up to blame the Libertarian party if EITHER candidate loses.

Some stations, like CBS, are already claiming the Libertarian party is going to cost John McCain votes. While other news media sources are claiming that Sen. Obama may be hurt  -- vote-wise -- by the Libertarian party. 

Whichever side it is, the meaning is clear -- we're not wanted here.

John McCain talks about victory in Iraq. He has not given a coherent description of "victory in Iraq" - but claims victory is a moral necessity, as well as imperative to our security. Barack Obama's 16-month timetable is now being "refined." This is a politically calculated move to the center or a continuation of Obama's promise that the US  "must be as careful getting out of Iraq as it was reckless going in."

Either way, it's a vague policy at best.

Over the holiday weekend, I did some catching up on recent public statements made by Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain. I read a little about Barack Obama's response to the unhappy left regarding his Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) vote for telecom immunity, and "refining" his message about Iraq troop withdrawals. I also read, for the first time, that John McCain admitted he does not know how to operate a computer and relies heavily on help from his wife for anything computer related. Assuming none of the above campaign messages were unintentional gaffes, I realized again that, inevitably, disappointment over compromise comes up during a presidential campaign.  

But how much compromise is too much?

The FISA vote stuck in my throat. I've written before about why I believe it's important to treat the Bush-era super-sized version of FISA with extreme care. Although the current policy voted on last week is more narrowly tailored, the idea that Senator Obama voted in FISA's favor frankly surprised me. Immediately, the skeptic in me jumped to the conclusion that the senator was already flip-flopping. 

But then he did something beautiful: He responded. 

I wanted to look at Barack Obama's heritage, if I may. 

Obama is half-Kenyan and half-Caucasian. He may self-identify as "African-American," but his heritage really has very little in common with most African-American blacks.

His ancestors were not slaves, but were actually free Africans from the opposite side of the continent. It's similar to comparing someone whose family is from Norway and someone whose family came from Austria. Same continent, but two completely different cultures. 

But, the society that we live in seems to believe that if you have any 'black' heritage in your bloodline, then you ARE black - despite the fact that such thinking is outdated.