Caught just a few moments of Obama, speaking at Saddleback. I came in partway though his talk, but on the first three topics I heard him address, his answers simply seemed to be false. And many of these weren't minor misstatements -- all but one (gay marriage) seemed to be a clear misrepresentation of his stance on some fairly major policy issues.

Abortion: When asked, Obama he believed we could work together to limit abortion; gave example of working to ban late-term abortions.

Yet his wife sent out fundraising letters for his campaign in which she defends "so-called partial birth abortion", and implies in the strongest terms that her husband will see this procedure protected. Consistent with that, in the Senate, Obama was apparently one of the very few Senators to vote against banning partial birth abortions. Further, in Illinois, he also repeatedly opposed any protection for infants born alive as a result of abortion procedures. (His clear vote to the contrary aside, how do you claim to oppose abortion of viable fetuses if you won't even protect their lives when they're outside the womb, breathing?)

Marriage: Said he defined marriage as one man, one woman, and implied he wouldn't redefine the relationship. And, to his credit (for consistency) at the Human Rights Campaign LGBT-issues debate (when it would have been most inconvenient to do) he did indicate he would oppose "gay marriage" but support "civil unions" instead. He also stated he believes it should be up to the states to decide this issue.

Yet Obama has also come out opposing California's democratic attempt to define marriage as one-man/one-woman. How does that not contradict his statement that it's up for states to decide? The actual outcome of the position he supported there is that California does, in fact, now have "gay marriage" -- not just civil unions. So he's seems to be saying one thing, but in real life, again supporting political actions which clearly will have the exact opposite effect.

Stem cell research: Implied he'd be opposed to stem cell research which might lead to cloning. According to bioethics.com, he would indeed permit cloning ("therapeutic" -- which means the fetus must be killed before coming to term). [He's apparently also opposed to giving federal funding to adult stem cell research -- despite the fact that it's been a far more productive and beneficial line of research than embryonic experimentation, with far fewer ethical concerns.]

Bipartisanship: Says he has a history of building bipartisan bridges to attack solutions together. Huh? When? Where? I have NO PROBLEM at all with principled, honest partisanship on many issues -- from either side. But Obama -- bipartisan? On what issue? I tire of pointing out he has one of the farthest-left voting records. But he apparently doesn't tire of making this claim.

When listening to him speak, I really (emotionally) liked the guy I was listening to. He came off as sounding folksy, honest, and genuine. His answers didn't sound canned or pre-rehearsed. And he said a number of things I do think he believes (he's opposed to human trafficking, for example) and a number of things there's simply no way to verify (future foreign policy promises).

But when I double-checked his statements on many important, concrete issues -- particularly those Warren raised first (and were seemingly most important to him) -- it seemed Obama was simply lying to his audience -- who usually clapped and cheered for his statements.

This gives me no pleasure to note: I disagree with his specific stances, but that doesn't have to mean one of us is being dishonest, or deliberately deceptive. But how do you reconcile a guy who (for example) claims he's deeply opposed to late-trimester abortions, and wants to ban them, with the guy who consistently voted against any such measures, and raises funds by implying he'll continue such opposition?

Rick Warren ended his speech with a plea to stop "demonizing" our opponents. I agree entirely. But, but -- when a politician quietly takes a consistent set of stances on something, and then claims, boldly, that he supports the exact opposite due to his faith -- which he's had all along, he says... shouldn't we point that out? Isn't that kind of a big deal when those issues are offered form a huge part of his appeal?

What are we to call all that? A confused stance? (Did he forget his own political history?) An unacknowledged change of heart? (If so, how are we to trust it?) Shouldn't that, at some point, be highlighted as an apparent deception? Is that necessarily "uncivil"? And if so, is "civility" more important than letting people know they're apparently being played in rather major ways?

Update: Ann Althouse also noted something amiss with Obama's "marriage" answer:

Obama garbled: "The reason that people believe there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because, uh, of the concern that, uh, uh, about same-sex marriage. I'm not somebody who's [sic] promotes same-sec [sic] marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not, um, that that for a gay partners [sic] to want to visit each other in the hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are [sic]." I think all those little glitches, especially the glaring grammatical error "what marriage are," strongly suggest that he is hiding what he really thinks.