April 2008 Archives

Today's WaPo editorial taxes Obama for bad judgment in L'Affaire Wright:

Did Mr. Obama climb out of that hole yesterday? It seems to us that the whole sorry episode raises legitimate questions about his judgment. Given the long and close relationship between Mr. Obama and the Rev. Wright, voters will ask: How could Mr. Obama have been surprised by the Rev. Wright's views? How could he not have seen this coming? Mr. Obama didn't help matters much by initially seeming to dismiss the furor building over the Rev. Wright's Washington performance, just as he did with the initial uproar last month. At a media availability at an airport Monday afternoon, he displayed none of the anger and sorrow that etched his face in North Carolina one day later.

In Obama's case, the outstanding issue, so far as I am concerned, is one of moral, not political judgment. How could he have remained close to Rev. Wright, how could he have remained in that church, given how much Wright's views on certain matters were repugnant to him. This question has been asked and answered in various ways over the past couple of months. In a sense, it all comes down to two questions, only one of which is subject to an empirical answer: What did Obama actually know of Wright's various repugnant views? And, should what he knew have been sufficient for him to leave the church? Anyone seeking a good guess at what Obama found so appealing in Wright, beyond what he has himself written, should take a look at this, from The Plank's Noam Scheiber.

In the wake of the latest Wright/Obama tempest, a view is taking hold (see Ambinder here) that the Wrights of the world would actually prefer to see Obama lose, inasmuch as an Obama victory would give the lie to their conviction that the American deck is irredeemably stacked against people of color. This analysis might be extended to make the point that the professional black establishment, if one might call it that, has more to gain (especially at this point) from a Clinton presidency than an Obama one. In an Obama presidency their swot would certainly be reduced.

This is hardly a new phenomenon. Back in 1960, the American Catholic establishment led by the redoubtable cardinal archbishop of New York, Francis Spellman, preferred Nixon to Kennedy--not that they could come right out and say so. But they knew full well that Kennedy would have to keep his distance from them and their agenda. Of course, rank-and-file Catholics overwhelmingly supported JFK, just as rank-and-file African Americans overwhelmingly support BHO.

"Yesterday he caricatured himself." That sounds about right to me. Andrew Sullivan is fired up, and ready to go again. Now let's see how it plays in the less sympathetic reaches of the commentariat.

New York's Cardinal Egan thought he had a deal with Rudy Giuliani that he'd never take Communion in his archdiocese. And then America's pro-choice former mayor went ahead and did so at St. Pat's, with His Holiness himself a few steps away. Nine days later, Egan fired his blast from the archdiocesan website. Giuliani, tracked down by the Daily News outside his East Side apartment, said, "It's a personal religious matter....I never comment on those. It's such a personal matter." Egan declared he would be "seeking a meeting" with Giulianii "to insist that he abide by our understanding.” Oh, to be a fly on the wall at that audience!

Actually, I rather doubt that the soon-to-retire Egan will be seeking too hard. As James Barron makes clear in his New York Times story, what moved that prince of the church to action was a column by no less consequential a keeper of the faith than the recently converted Robert Novak--along with assorted other woofing by Catholic conservatives. The Vatican itself didn't seem particularly perturbed at Giuliani's having done what he did. But by calling public attention to it, Novak et al. turned it into a scandal. Lest the failful be weakened in their faith thereby, the cardinal archbishop must speak...ah, post...up.

So we have Wright the thoughtful intellectual with Bill Moyers, Wright the passionate exponent of equality before the NAACP, and Wright the angry radical at the National Press Club. Inevitably, the last will be engraved as the real Wright, though I'm inclined to think that all of them are equally real.

Yesterday, as chapter 2 of the Jeremiah Wright Saga was getting under way, Barack Obama went to St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Indianapolis, a big urban enterprise presided over by Rev. M. Kent Millard. A few weeks ago, Rev. Millard preached on racial reconciliation--in the big friendly inclusive unthreatening white Midwestern Methodist mode.

Rev. Wright continues to dominate the media cycle with remarks made to the National Press Club. Here is the video of Wright defending the infamous "9-11 were America's chickens coming home to roost" line. Wright went on to say that the Black Church was really the victim of attacks directed at him. His remarks at the press club followed a speech in front of the NAACP where Wright rejected the notion that he was divisive.

CNN has recalculated its exit poll for Pennsylvania, with the result that the Jewish vote turns out to be more pro-Clinton than it originally seemed: 62 percent to 38 percent (61 percent to 39 percent for white Jews). That's a little bigger margin than for white Protestants (59 percent to 41 percent) and a good deal smaller than for white Catholics (72 percent to 28 percent). For a discussion of the Jewish vote in PA, see here.

Runoff life in Miss. 1.

According to the latest Newsweek poll, just over half of Americans (52 percent) think Barack Obama is a Christian, 13 percent think he's a Muslim, 9 percent think he's something else, and 26 percent don't know. Fewer non-white (48 percent) than whites (53 percent) think he's Christian. Fully 16 percent of poor or working class whites think he's a Muslim.

I am struck with the absence of commentary on Bill Moyers' interview of Jeremiah Wright. Yes, the thing aired Friday evening, and there's a tendency for topical bloggers as well as MSM opinion writers to take the weekend off. But even so, this man spent weeks at the center of the national presidential campaign, and during the entire time said not one public word. What this looks like is nothing so much as embarrassed silence at the revelation that Wright is a soft-spoken, well informed, highly intelligent, astute and even reasonable guy--to be sure, with a radical idea or two, but whose conversational mode with an interlocutor like Moyers is--surprise!--not remotely like the viral sound bytes of an African-American preacher at full throttle.

The one interview byte that has elicited attention is what has been taken as Wright's put-down of Obama for being a politician. Actually there were two such bytes. First, referring to Obama's Philadelphia speech, Wright said:

And so here at a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of god about the things of God.

It went down very simply. He's a politician. I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do, he does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the soundbites, he responded as a politician.

That Wright, like Jesus, recognizes the importance of operating as a politician in the political realm--rendering unto Caesar--is clear from his earlier statement to Moyers, about the import of Obama's speech:

BILL MOYERS: So what blues are you singing right now?

REVEREND WRIGHT: Don't know why they treat me so bad. I'm singing the sacred blues. The songs of our gospel tradition. That I'm so glad trouble don't last always. That, what man meant for evil, God meant for good. That what--

BILL MOYERS: What man meant for evil God meant for good.

REVEREND WRIGHT: That's a quote from Joseph, in the bible, the Book of Genesis.

BILL MOYERS: And what do you take that to mean?

REVEREND WRIGHT: That Human beings, many times, do things for nefarious purposes. And God can take that and turn something- make something good out of it. That, for instance, using that Joseph passage, when his brother sold him into slavery, and they thought, after daddy's gone, he's gonna get us. And Joseph reassured them by saying, "No, no, what you meant for evil, God has turned into something good. I'm not trying to do revenge or payback. In fact, restoration is what God is. And I restore you. As brothers, we're all brothers." That those sound bytes, those snippets were taken for nefarious purposes. That God can take that and do something very positive for it- with it. That, in Philadelphia, in response to the sound bytes, in response to the snippets, in Philadelphia Senator Obama made a very powerful speech in terms of our need as a nation to address the whole issue of race. That's something good that's already starting. That because of you guys playing these sound bytes now what's getting ready to happen as something very positive, and something very powerful that God can take what you meant to try to hurt somebody to help the nation come to grips with truth. To help a nation come to grips with miseducation. To help a nation come to grips with things we don't like to talk about.

So who says it was wrong for Obama to speak as a politician?

Anyone who pronounces on Jeremiah Wright without having seen Bill Moyers' Journal last night doesn't deserve a hearing. My mother-in-law--a nice 83-year-old Jewish lady--put it this way: "Rev. Wright was fantastic--after listening to 5 minutes of what preceded God Damn America I'm ready to join the church." I'm not sure I'm quite that ready, but there can be no better answer to the question, posed repeatedly over the past weeks, of why Obama didn't leave Trinity U.C.C. There are few clergy I've ever seen or heard more impressive--intellectually, spiritually--than Wright in this conversation. Judge for yourself.

Direct Democracy's Todd Beeton is shocked that the Obama campaign didn't have Jeremiah Wright "on message" in tonight's Bill Moyers' interview. It's clear that Wright did Obama no favor by saying that his Philadelphia comments about Wright were Obama being what he is--a politician rather than a pastor, speaking as a politician must. I'm not entirely sure that Wright thought he was dissing Obama. But the main thing is, why should anyone at this point think that anybody controls Jeremiah Wright? I can just see Obama reading that post and shaking his head in disbelief. It just goes to show you the extent to which the national politblogosphere is morphing into an extension of the Beltway MSM.

E.J. Dionne and Steve Waldman are both in the field today with solutions to Obama's "Catholic Problem." The problem, and they're both sort of aware of it, is that the nature and extent of the problem is not very clear. Yes, Obama had a discernible problem with white Catholics (as opposed to white Protestants) in PA. But not in Ohio. And anyway, the real issue is likely to be not how Obama does with Catholics vis-a-vis Clinton, but vis-a-vis McCain. Latino Catholics have always been dependable Democratic voters, and the fact that they have heavily favored Clinton over Obama doesn't mean that they will cross over and support McCain in the general election. I expect more will vote for McCain than would have for, say, Mitt Romney. But not many more.

Waldman thinks Obama should be more pro-life-friendly. Dionne thinks Obama should be grittier, more nuts-and-bolts. I think it mostly comes down to Pennsylvania and Ohio. For the Catholics (and white Protestants he needs), he should make the popular (Methodist) governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, his running mate. Strickland ran a brialliant campaign in 2006, and should be able to do the necessary thing for Obama in 2008. As for Pennsylvania, well, I wouldn't omit prayer.

RNC dep chair tells Brody McCain's courting of the faithful will be "aggressive." And what does the McCain campaign say?

As we await Bill Moyer's interview of Jeremiah Wright (previewed here by the New York Times), it's worth wondering whether Wright might have saved his most famous former parishioner some grief by going public sooner. Judging by the quotes on display, I think not.

With John McCain touring New Orleans today, the liberal blogosphere is reviving his endorser John Hagee's remarks blaming Katrina on a big gay pride parade that had been planned in the Crescent City. Hagee made the point in an interview with NPR's Terry Gross back in September, but a lot more fun is Dennis Prager's recent interview of Hagee, in which that pious purveyor of Jewish moralism does his level best to enable Hagee to disavow the position, and Hagee just sticks doggedly to it. There's of course a certain effort here to make Hagee into McCain's Jeremiah Wright. Close but no cigar: Hagee's not McCain's pastor. N'awlins is not America--just ask George Bush. And while Wright isn't really anti-American, Hagee really is anti-Catholic.

Nancy Pelosi sent out an uncharacteristic press release celebrating Earth Day and calling for an end to climate change. The release ended with a biblical quotation. “The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’ On this Earth Day, and every day, let us honor the earth and our future generations with a commitment to fight climate change.” This invocation of scripture is raising many an eyebrow for two reasons. First, it is usually Pelosi’s republican counterparts who quote the good book. And second, it appears that no such bible verse exists. Was the Pelosi office just paraphrasing? It seems that Speaker Pelosi has used the phrase many times before and has attributed it to the book of Isaiah. This is not to say that the Bible doesn't instruct man to care for the earth. Two passages that instruct enviromental care taking are Genesis 1:26. "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" and Lev. 25:23-24. "The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land."

Addendum: Actually, the best biblical texts for Pelosi are probably Genesis 2:15 (“And the Lord took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden, to dress it and keep it.”) and Jeremiah 2:7 ("I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable."). For an excellent portrait of religious environmentalism, see Andrew Walsh's article in the current issue of Religion in the News.

The last couple of days, Politico (here) and God-o-Meter (here and here and here) have been all over the back and forth between the McCain campaign and the North Carolina GOP over an ad the latter put up tying two Democratic gubernatorial wannabees in the Tarheel State to Obama/Wright. (Both have endorsed Obama.) The McCain campaign, including the candidate himself, forthrightly denounced the guilt-by-association once removed, but the North Carolinians pushed back, claiming that they were simply raising questions about "patriotism and judgment," not race. (Since they weren't charged with playing the race card, one might conclude that this is a case of what psychotherapists consider affirmation by denial.)

Politico thinks that McCain was concerned about blowback from such advertising. Others, more cynically, might view the GOP as getting the best of both worlds: a race-and-radicalism bump among NC voters plus punditocratic credit to McCain for high-mindedness and principle. My sense is that there's enough of everything to go around: blowback, bump, credit for McCain. McCain has, in fact, not stayed entirely out of the Wright-cum-bitterness fray. I'd say that from his campaign's standpoint, he wants to be able to handle this toxic material very carefully. What he doesn't need is a lot of ham-handed locals forcing him to be more hands-off and censorious than he wants to be.

Update: Then there's the view that the real object of the exercise is to help Clinton over Obama in the primary--either to keep the Democratic going as long as possible or because of a belief that Clinton would be easier than Obama to beat in NC in November, or both.

Later Update: So now, it seems, the ad won't ever be seen on the air. It's only (gasp!) been available on the web. Ninety-one thousand views so far. You be the judge.

Still later update: Whoops! Maybe not.

Does Barack Obama have a Catholic, as opposed to a white Christian problem? In Pennsylvania yesterday, the answer was yes. Where white Protestants went for Clinton by 58 percent to 42 percent, white Catholics split 71-29 in her favor. That's the worst showing Obama's gotten among that group of voters anywhere in the nation, not excluding New York. In Ohio (so often compared to Pennsylvania), Obama actually did better among white Catholics (34-65) than among white Protestants (30-67). What gives? Pennsylvania's white Catholics are, I think, more working class, more classic Reagan Democrat. Pennsylvania's white Protestants comprise many fewer evangelicals, and a lot more moderate-to-liberal suburbanites.

Jews went for Clinton, but by a smaller margin than white Protestants. Unaccountably, all Jews were slightly more pro-Clinton (57-43) than white Jews (56-44). As usual, those of non-Judeo-Christian faiths and of no religion went strongly for Obama. But the big religion story of the primary was the overwhelming Catholic support for Clinton--and the utter failure of popular Catholic pro-life governor Bob Casey, Jr. to move his co-religionists in the direction of his favored candidate.

Tara Wall hopes that whoever prevails today and in November they will sustain the White House Office of Faith Based Community Initiatives. Wall's editorial today is part of a quiet discourse about government sponsored religion that hasn't received as much ink as the candidates' personal faith.

While the eyes of the country are on PA today, the New York Times' Adam Nossiter calls attention to the special election to fill the seat in Mississippi's first congressional district--the Elvis district in the northeast part of the state centered on Tupelo. There, the Democratic candidate, Travis Childers, seems to be giving his GOP opponent, Greg Davis, a run for his money, based on the new-style social conservatism/economic populism. This was pioneered thereabouts by John Arthur Eaves in his gubernatorial run against Haley Barbour last fall. Across the big river, of course, there was precedent-setting Gov. Mike Huckabee. Though Childers, a Baptist, doesn't seem to be pushing religion hard, he knows how to integrate "values" with little-guy economics, as in:

“Now, I have to be honest. I'm a Mississippi Democrat, not a Washington, DC Democrat. I'll be on the side of the family struggling, the child that needs health care and the teenager who's only hope is a college degree. I'm pro-life and pro-gun. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. And I will take a tough stand to stop illegal immigration into our country....To change our country wee don't have to change our core values. But, if we don't change the direction of our country, our core values will be compromised."

The race for Indiana’s 7th congressional district continues to be one of the most interesting exercises on religion in politics this year. Andre Carson, who replaced his late grandmother in a special election last month, became the second Muslim member of Congress. However, Carson’s honeymoon may be short lived. He faces stiff competition from five challengers to his seat in a primary election May 6.
The district is 30% African American and black churches have become the center of attention. Challengers including Carolene Mays are not shying away from religion. Mays’ website greets visitors with an exclamation,

"One of my favorite quotes is from Proverbs 31:8-9 NIV 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.' Proverbs goes on to talk about the virtuous woman who had talents in many areas; it discusses how strength and honor are her clothing and how she opens her mouth with wisdom.”

Yesterday on ABC:

Presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., admitted this morning that it was a mistake to accept the endorsement of Evangelical pastor Rev. John Hagee. When asked in an exclusive "This Week" interview with George Stephanopoulos if it was "a mistake to solicit and accept his endorsement", McCain replied "oh, probably, sure." Despite admitting his error, McCain made clear he's still "glad to have his endorsement."

Be sure to check out this week's Bill Moyers' Journal with guest Jeremiah Wright.

Other than weighing in on immigration--which, sorry Tanc, has dropped out of public discourse--Pope Benedict stayed steadfastly above the political fray during his visit. Yes, there was the inclusion of references to "life" in his list of things that citizens should support. But nothing about what kinds of candidates Catholics should vote for, or about the appropriateness of Catholic politicians who support abortion rights receiving Communion. In his Yankee Stadium homily, he noted that the United States was a country where Catholics had found not only religious freedom but also the freedom to "participate fully in civic life." He said that "praying fervently for the coming of the Kingdom" meant, among other things, "rejecting a false dichotomy between faith and political life." This election season, that's about like standing up for motherhood, for apple pie.

Today's McClatchy/MSNBC/Pittsburgh Post Gazette poll breaks down PA voters by religion and the big news on that front would be that Clinton clobbers Obama among Jews, 73 percent to 17 percent, if the number of Jewish voters reached (48) weren't so low. If you aren't in the neighborhood of n=100 for a given category, the results are not considered meaningful. Still, I'd be willing to bet that Clinton gets a very healthy majority of the Jewish vote come Tuesday. Otherwise, it's Clinton with slightly more than a 2-1 margin among Catholics, Obama with slightly less than 2-1 margins among Protestants and the non-religious. (Protestants, of course, include most African Americans, 83 percent of whom support Obama). The poll's portrait of PA's Democratic voters shows the proportion of Catholics three percentage points smaller than the proportion of Protestants and non-religious combined (41 percent versus 44 percent). Looked at this way, it's the non-Christians who will make the difference in the primary.

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION
STATE PROTESTANT CATHOLIC JEWISH NONRELIGIOUS
Hillary Clinton 48% 31% 63% 73% 32%
Barack Obama 43% 60% 30% 17% 60%
Other (NOT READ) ** 1% 1% 1% - 2%
Undecided (NOT READ) 8% 8% 7% 10% 6%

RELIGION:
Christian-Protestant 193 (31%)
Christian-Catholic 252 (41%)
Jewish 48 (8%)
Other Non-Christian 31 (5%)
Non-Religious 81 (13%)
Refused 20 (3%)

Mea culpa, but I can help taking a little pleasure in Tom Tancredo's violation of that cardinal rule of contemporary American politics, never to say anything bad about the pope, especially when he's visiting our country. Aggravated by B16's blatant pro-immigrantism, the congressional scourge of illegal immigration made so bold as to suggest that the Holy Father was simply trying to to gin up membership in his Church. This inspired Howard Dean to call on John McCain to denounce Tancredo's remarks, inasmuch as Tanc, having abandoned his quixotic run for the GOP presidential nomination, grudgingly threw his support to that most immigrant-friendly of all this year's GOP presidential contenders. Oyez, oyez!

Tancredo is one of those Pew-beloved folks raised Catholic who now belong to evangelical churches, and he has doubtless been long harboring ill will toward all those bishops in the Latino Catholic belt who have so vigorously opposed his Dobbsian ideas on the Brown Horde. And now the pope himself! Grrr!

Today's WaPo, among the bitter in Cherleroi, PA:

In his San Francisco remarks, Obama paraphrased author Thomas Frank, who argues that many low-income white voters have been distracted by such social issues as same-sex marriage into voting Republican and thereby, he argues, against their economic interests.

Residents took issue with that, noting that it was hardly irrational for them to put less stock in economic planks, given that such promises produce so little.

On Wednesday, responding to a question from Bishop Vann Johnson, Pope Benedict said:

Perhaps America's brand of secularism poses a particular problem: it allows for professing belief in God, and respects the public role of religion and the Churches, but at the same time it can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator. Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things "out there" are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life. The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living "as if God did not exist."

On Sunday, responding to a question from Cambell Brown, Barack Obama said:

What I believe is that all of us come to the public square with our own values and our ideals and our ethics, what we believe. And people of religious faith have the same right to come to that public square with values and ideals that are rooted in their faith. And they have the right to describe them in religious terms, which has been part of our history. As I said in some of my writings, imagine Dr. King, you know, going up before, in front of the Lincoln Memorial and having to scrub all his religious references, or Abraham Lincoln in the Second Inaugural not being able to refer to God. What religious language can often do is allow us to get outside of ourselves and mobilize around a common good. On the other hand, what those of us of religious faith have to do when we're in the public square is to translate our language into a universal language that can appeal to everybody. And both Lincoln and King did this and every great leader did it, because we are not just a Christian nation. We are a Jewish nation; we are a Buddhist nation; we are a Muslim nation; Hindu nation; and we are a nation of atheists and nonbelievers.

To what extent is American civil religion, as articulated by Sen. Obama, a threat to religious belief, as conceived by Pope Benedict? (30 points)

Yes, this presidential campaign has been has been shot through with more religion than any campaign in history. Yes, we've been treated to Democratic as well as Republican aspirants cross-questioned on their faith. But yes, most Americans can't match Clinton, and Obama, and McCain to a particular brand. According to a survey conducted for the AP and Yahoo this month by Knowledge Networks, the proportion of Americans correctly identifying each as Protestant is, respectively, 33 percent, 27 percent, and 26 percent. The percentages of those who say they don't know, are 51-44-61. Fifteen percent think Obama is a Muslim. Eight percent think he is "some other religion." Eight percent think Clinton is a Catholic and three percent think she has no religion.

I wish one of the options had been: "Don't care." Doesn't the fact that most Americans haven't, at this late date, troubled to find out the religion of the candidates they're going to vote for suggest as much?

As promised, here is the advertisment from the Alliance for Climate Protection featuring the odd coupling of Rev. Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson.

The exchange between Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and the Faith and Public Life folks over last Sunday's Compassion Forum is worth looking at for anyone interested in the ongoing saga of evangelicals in politics. Perkins' characterization of the of the event's board as "radical," his apparently false claim that the FRC was not invited to participate (according to the other side, he was), points to some real anxiety in the Religious Right's old guard at the effort to broaden the "values" agenda and soften its partisan, culture-wars edge. In fact, Perkins made no bones about the stakes: "Unfortunately, with the help of some of our friends, the Religious Left is trying to realign, and thereby dilute, the values voter message...As Democrats vie for the Christian vote, we must remember that it is not the church that should be affected by their message. Rather, their message should be affected by a faithful church."

How much should the old guard worry that their troops have been softened up? So far, the evidence is mostly impressionistic. But when the likes of Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum and the president of the Southern Baptist Convention sign on to something like the Compassion Forum, you don't need a weatherman to tell you that the atmosphere has changed.

See Brody for squabbling between the Dobson wing of engaged evangelicalism and the Compassion Forum wing. See Beth Fouhy's AP story on Obama's efforts to reassure Jewish leaders on Wright and his support for Israel.

Pope Benedict XVI visited the White House today. On 81st birthday, His Holiness with was regaled with "Happy Birthday" by an enthusiastic crowd. President Bush welcomed the Pope to an America where "hearts are open to your message of hope." His Holiness reciprocated the warm greeting and praised the United States for its rich history of "noble principles".

The Indianapolis Star is reporting that fledgling Indiana Rep. Andre Carson will be throwing his superdelegate support to Barack Obama today. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) has already done so. That means Obama has garnered the backing of the entire congressional Muslim caucus--a fact the Obama campaign may or may not highlight. Does anyone know if there are any other Muslim superdelegates out there?

The second coming of Mike Huckabee this campaign cycle is now revealed to be a GOP political action committee, dedicated to (drumroll): "Life. Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness." Huck PAC's first featured supportee is the nondescript congressman from the eastern Atlanta suburbs, John Linder. That's more of a whimper than a bang, but then so is the Pac's stated object in life, as blogged by Huck himself:

Many felt that their Party needed to get back to its core principles: less government, a strong national defense and unwavering support for the family and the sanctity of life...

Huck PAC is founded on the principles that make America great: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. And because we believe our Republican Party embodies these ideas and is best suited to lead America forward, we are committed to supporting Republican candidates who are passionate advocates for tax reform, a strong national defense, real border security, life, the family, less government and individual liberty.

For an analysis of the politics of this move, see this from Aaron Sadler of the Stephens Washington Bureau .

How did Barack Obama's speech on race affect how white people in upcoming Democratic primaries view him? It depends on which primary. Today's Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll asked the following question of Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina:

As you may know, Barack Obama made a speech on the subject of race in America after it became public that the pastor of his church, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, made some controversial remarks about America. Obama disavowed some of the Reverend's remarks, but also said that voters should not focus on that issue as a reason to vote for him or not. Has Obama's handling of this issue made you think more or less highly of him or has it not affected your opinion of him either way?

According to today's Washington Post-ABC News poll, 62 percent of American Catholics think the Catholic church is out of touch "with the views of Catholics in America today." That's the same number as expressed that view back in October of 2003, in the midst of the pedophile coverup crisis. Then, 64 percent of American Catholics said that the pope should change church policies "to reflect the attitudes and lifestyles of Catholics today." Today, however, by a margin of 50 percent to 45 percent, they think the pope "should maintain the traditional policies of the Church." So American Catholics want to belong to an out-of-touch Church, right?

OK, the polls suggest that Bittergate is not registering much if at all with Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania, and everybody in the blogosphere is probably sick unto death with the interminable parsing, but I will indulge myself in one more close reading of the text in question, courtesy of Colin McEnroe's useful reprinting of the entire thing.

So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

With respect to the latter three, it would be in the form of: Our economic troubles are the fault of 1) affirmative action; 2) all these illegal immigrants; or 3) NAFTA and other free trade policies. Why cling to guns as an explanation? Maybe because we blame the people who want to take away our guns for our troubles. And religion? That's easy. Our religion teaches us that God puts us, like Job, to the test. But we will prevail if we just, in the words of the contemporary Christian hit, cling to the Cross.

The point is, what we don't cling to is the hope that some politician, especially some black politician named Barack Obama, will actually do something to relieve our economic distress. Because 1) Barack Obama looks like just another one of those untrustworthy politicians; and 2) he himself seems to be the incarnation of at least a couple of the things we blame our frustrations on.

As WaPo's Michael Abramowitz reports, prominent Jewish liberals are coalescing in order to fight AIPAC. This new group is starting a political action committee of their own aimed at breaking conservatives' and evangelicals' hold on U.S. policy toward Israel. The American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) that has dominated the pro-Israel agenda will now be countered by the JStreetPAC. Notable participants include a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House, activists from MoveOn and former government officials.

The pope's coming to town, so it's a good time to ponder whither the Catholic vote this primary season.

Newsday has a story on Obama's troubles with Catholics, wherein your correspondent is quoted as a lonely voice suggesting (again, for readers of this blog) that there's less there than meets the eye. The big piece of evidence for this is a Gallup poll of March 24, which shows Obama trailing Clinton among white Protestants 34 percent to 56 percent, and among white Catholics by 34 percent to 56 percent--in a word, by exactly the same amount. What makes Protestants and Catholics look so different in the aggregate is that the "rest" of America's Catholics are Latinos (who prefer Clinton) and the "rest" of America's Protestants are African Americans, who adore Obama. Meanwhile, according to that poll, Clinton and Obama split the Jewish vote and Obama is way ahead with those of non-Judeo-Christian faiths and those of no religion. So my point has been that Obama's big problem when it comes to religion is with white Christians, not with Catholics.

But one poll should not be taken as dispositive, and so I decided to take a look at a dozen primary states with sufficient numbers of Catholic and Protestants, to see how Obama has fared as between white Catholics and white Protestants. Here are the results (the first number is his percentage of the white Catholic vote, the second, his percentage of the white Protestant vote.

California: 37, 36
Connecticut: 39, 55
Georgia: 44, 37
Illinois: 46, 56
Massachusetts: 31, 44
Missouri: 46, 40
New Jersey 26, 32
New York: 31, 40
Ohio: 34, 30
Texas: 41, 40
Virginia: 49, 50
Wisconsin 50, 58

Overall, Obama's support among white Catholics (WCs) ranges from 26 percent to 50 percent; his support among white Protestants (WPs), 30 percent to 58 percent. In six states (CT, MA, IL, NJ, NY, WI), he did better among WPs than among WCs. In three states (GA, MO, OH), he did better among WCs than among WPs. And in three states (CA, TX, VA), he did equally well (or poorly) among both groups. What all this suggests is that Gallup is probably about right: In the aggregate, white Protestants and Catholics support Obama at just about the same rate. This aggregate picture, however, disguises many differences, both among Catholics and Protestants. It's pretty clear, for example, that in the Northweast, the mainliners who dominate the Protestant world are more likely to give Obama their support than the working class and lower middle class Catholics (who overwhelmingly still, uh, cling to the Democratic party). This kind of analysis should be pursued state by state, region by region. And the bottom line is, this is the kind of mixed picture that gives journalists fits.

Hillary Clinton has a new ad out today in North Carolina. The commercial features a supporter, Jewel Hodges, speaking eloquently on why she supports Senator Clinton. The endorsement seems very reminiscent of John Winthrop's "City on a Hill" speech from 1630.

Andrea Billups of the Washington Times has jumped on the story about John McCain's reserved discussion of religion. As Billups and others explain, McCain remains mum on his faith other than a few brief mentions of how it has sustained him in difficult times. The more interesting issue at hand is whether this foreshadows a different GOP relationship with the religious right during the campaign? Well, skeptics remain.

The current New York Times series on Pope Benedict XVI provides excellent insight into the dynamics behind the pope's visit. The April 13 article portrays the complexity of this Pope's views on social issues; today's article (April 14) considers the struggles of lay Catholics as their parishes face closures. But for those interested in religion and politics, the most important insight comes from the data regarding American Catholic views on abortion, the death penalty, desire for "big government," same-sex marriage, government-backed healthcare, and immigration. Across the board, American Catholics in general hold attitudes more liberal (though sometimes probably within the sampling errors, which are not given) than the U.S. population as a whole.

This belies the stereotype of American Catholics as generally conservative. Hispanic Catholics do more closely reflect conservative commitments; but overall the only issues on which Catholic attitudes seem strongly to reflect the magisterium's teachings are on government services, government-backed healthcare, and immigration -- where those teachings are decidedly more liberal. This kind of thing drives some conservative Catholic leaders crazy -- in the belief that lay Catholics are simply not listening. Surely that's true on some issues, but the data also suggest a very different answer: There can be little doubt that American Catholics know what their leaders teach on at least some of those issues. They have listened, maybe even agree with some of the principles at stake, but have come to believe that the complexities faced in people's lives make for complex answers. Or perhaps the grip of popular culture holds American Catholics more firmly than does the Church.

In either case, if Pope Benedict and American Catholic leaders hope to effectively shape Catholic views on social issues, they will have to more powerfully inspire laypeople's moral imaginations and engage their ethical reasoning; there is little evidence that commanding agreement on these issues is having much effect. There is some evidence that Benedict recognizes this and will adopt a pastoral tone during his visit, but that is worth watching for. More fundamental over the long term is the experience of everyday Catholics in their home parishes -- do the community's love, the prayer and music of the liturgy, and the spiritual witness of their priests take hold of their spirits? That will shape Catholic social views more profoundly over the long term, because it will fire their moral imaginations.

Clinton
Obama

From the Obama peroration:

What I believe is that all of us come to the public square with our own values and our ideals and our ethics, what we believe. And people of religious faith have the same right to come to that public square with values and ideals that are rooted in their faith. And they have the right to describe them in religious terms, which has been part of our history. As I said in some of my writings, imagine Dr. King, you know, going up before, in front of the Lincoln Memorial and having to scrub all his religious references, or Abraham Lincoln in the Second Inaugural not being able to refer to God. What religious language can often do is allow us to get outside of ourselves and mobilize around a common good. On the other hand, what those of us of religious faith have to do when we're in the public square is to translate our language into a universal language that can appeal to everybody. And both Lincoln and King did this and every great leader did it, because we are not just a Christian nation. We are a Jewish nation; we are a Buddhist nation; we are a Muslim nation; Hindu nation; and we are a nation of atheists and nonbelievers. And it is important for us not to try to kill the debate by saying, "Well, God tells me I'm right, and so I'm not going to listen to you." Rather, we've got to translate whatever it is that we believe into a language that allows for argument, allows for debate, and also allows that we may be wrong.

On the administration's Faith Based initiative--a subject Obama introduced on his own--he was not as clear as he should have been. Specifically, does he believe faith-based organizations can use government funds to advance their faiths? Specifically, does he believe federal laws against religiously discriminatory hiring should apply to such organizations?

And so, you know, just to go back to our theme here tonight, people sometimes ask me, what do I think about faith-based initiatives? I want to keep the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives open, but I want to make sure that its mission is clear. It's not to -- it's not to simply build a particular faith community, the faith-based initiatives should be targeted specifically at the issue of poverty and how to lift people up. And partnering with faith communities, I think we can achieve that as long as it's within the requirements of our Constitution. We make sure that it's open to everybody. It's not simply the federal government funding certain groups to be able to evangelize.

At the "Compassion Forum," Barack Obama made clear that the moderate Islam that was the norm in the Indonesia of his youth is his model of what Islam should be in the world.

And the brand of Islam that was being practiced in Indonesia at the time was a very tolerant Islam. The country itself was explicitly secular in its constitution. And so you didn't have the oppressive state that was trying to impose people's religious beliefs. And Christians and people of other faiths lived very comfortably there. And women were working, and out, and were not wearing the traditional coverings that we see in the Middle East. And so what it taught me, and what it still teaches me, as I think about foreign policy now, is that Islam can be compatible with the modern world.

It can be a partner with the Christian and Jewish and Hindu and Buddhist faiths in trying to create a better world. And so I am always careful and suspicious of attempts to paint Islam with a broad brush because the overwhelming majority of the people of the Islamic faith are people of good will who are trying to raise their families and live up to their values and ideals and to try to raise their kids as best they can and that's something that I think we always have to remember as opposed to assuming a clash of civilizations that sometimes are overheated rhetoric that politically is talked about.

In last night's Commpassion Forum, Campbell Brown asked Hillary Clinton to name her favorite Bible story and she named...the story of Esther:

But clearly, for me, the recent Purim holiday for Jews raised the question of Esther. And I have been -- ever since I was a little girl -- a great admirer of Esther. And I used to ask that that be read to me over and over again, because there weren't too many models of women who had the opportunity to make a decision, to take a chance, a risk that, you know, was very courageous.

Hillary Clinton said that the question of her church attendance "is not relevant" for tonight's debate. Clinton went on to say “This is about what people feel is being said about them. I went to church on Easter. I mean, so?”

Jeremiah Wright delivered his first public sermon since stepping down from TUCC, today. He urged a congregation in Norfolk, VA. not to "quote Jeremiah Wright" but to instead "quote Jesus." Otherwise the controversial spiritual leader avoided discussion of Obama or the firestorm surrounding previous sermons .

"It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment."

No one jumped on Barack Obama for suggesting, in his speech on race, that affirmative action was an ongoing source of white hostility to African Americans. And I suspect no one would have batted an eye if, in his now notorious San Francisco remarks, he had expanded that analysis to attribute his difficulty in attracting white working class votes just to immigration and trade policy (though the latter is a little dicier these days in Democratic circles). But no, he had to drag in guns and God, thereby making gun-toting, prayer-book-wielding Hillary Clinton's day.

On the gun front, someone has noticed that Obama's done just fine, thank you, in the country's most pro-gun states. I'll leave it to the Second-Amendment-and-the-Campaign bloggers to sort that one out. As to religion, it's not clear that there are fewer atheists in soup kitchens and unemployment lines. Students of the black church in America note that the decline in church attendance among African Americans has tended to come at the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Yet, at a more global level, Alan Wolfe recently made the case that the more prosperous a country is, the less intense religion is likely to be. Tonight, Obama and Clinton will be participating in a "Compassion Forum" at Messiah College. Who wants to bet that this dimension of religion's role in the social order doesn't comes up?

When popes come to America, so comes the inevitable criticism, pre- and post-visit, heaped upon the media for not understanding what the pope is really doing here. This is all rather wearying, especially since much of it is no more than partisan spinning by Catholic commentators eager to pretend that the pontiff is really on their side. At the moment, not surprisingly, the whipping boy is media interest in what the pope might have to say of relevance to the current election cycle (check out Mattingly here).

Well, okay. Journalists owe the public at least some indication of what the pope considers his main business to be, if such a thing can be discerned. But, in the end, why is it more important to focus, say, on Benedict's desire to let Americans in on his conviction that there is such a thing as absolute truth than, say, on a stray but pointed remark on the obligations of Catholic voters? In my humble opinion, the pope should no more get to determine what is newsworthy about Himself than any other object of journalistic attention.

For the record, the complete National Advisory Council list:

National Co-Chairs *
Senator Bob Casey
Representative Patrick Murphy (PA-08)
Former Congressman Tim Roemer, President of the Center for National Policy
Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas
Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
Tom Chabolla, Assistant to the President, Service Employees International Union
Victoria Reggie Kennedy, President, Common Sense About Kids and Guns
Sr. Jamie Phelps, O.P., Director and Professor of Theology, Institute for Black Catholic Studies, Xavier University
Sr. Catherine Pinkerton, Congregation of St. Joseph

The generally astute Marc Ambinder chews over Obama's alleged Catholic problem and, like most commentators, misses the point. As has been noted in this space before, taken in the aggregate, white Protestants are no more likely to vote for Obama than white Catholics. Obama doesn't have a Catholic problem. He has a white Christian problem. And he has a Latino problem.

The Obama campaign rolled out its Catholic Advisory Council today, including: Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA), Congressman Patrick Murphy (PA-O8), Former Congressman Tim Roemer, Sr. Catherine Pinkerton, Congregation of St. Joseph, Tom Chabolla, Assistant to the President, Service Employees International Union, and Sharon Daly, Social Justice Advocate. The senator and sitting congressman tell you sufficiently where the campaign's head is at, but to me, the most interesting name on the list is Sr. Catherine's. Her St. Joseph congregation is based in Cleveland (she once served as its Superior General) but she's a long, long-time social justice activist who serves on the board of a liberal D.C. outfit called Faith in Public Life and works on the Capitol Hill for NETWORK, a Catholic social justice lobby.

I asked my recently retired colleague, Sr. Patricia Byrne, a sister of a St. Joseph congregation based in Pittsburgh, whether she thought Sr. Catherine (the only member of the Council under the immediate authority of the Catholic hierarchy) was likely to draw any episcopal flak for working for a candidate who favors abortion rights. "Catherine Pinkerton is not afraid of the bishops," she said. "My reading on it would be that if you’re allowed to vote for someone who is pro-choice you’re allowed to campaign for him. Unless you’ve got a bishop who’s a wacko. I hope that she doesn’t get smacked."

In a conference call with reporters, Obama's director of religious affairs Joshua Dubois said that the campaign would, among other things, be reaching out to women religious. According to Sr. Pat, the vast majority of sisters are Democrats but in her congregation at least, they're pretty evenly divided between Obama and Clinton. So there's work to be done.

I know what I'll be watching Saturday evening...Jesus Camp Part Deux.

Comedy Central weighs in on the Huckaticktock. As for me, I'm expecting The Great Disappointment. Again.

The ancient Olympic Games were as much a religious affair (honoring Zeus and King Pelops of Olympia) as an athletic one, and the modern Olympics should also be recognized as constituting a civil religion of its own. That's how to understand IOC President Jacques Rogge's using the word "crisis" to describe a situation in which there have been some protests attendant to the ceremonial worldwide torch relay and decisions by a few heads of state to stay away from the opening ceremonies of the forthcoming Beijing Games.

I'm no devotee of the Olympic Cult, at least as conducted by its chief acolytes in the IOC. As an editorial writer at the Atlanta Journal Constitution in the early 1990s, I was responsible for writing about the upcoming Atlanta Games, and little about the preparations was lovely. The Games themselves were a good deal of fun, but the IOC didn't like them much. They were too commercial, and there were too many ordinary people clogging the venues and the TV sight lines. What the IOC likes is a decorous celebration, where the meaty corporate sponsorships are tucked away behind extravagant public expense. And God forbid any unsightly politics. Did anyone doubt that Beijing could supply all of the above? "It's easy to say now that this was not a wise and a sound decision," said Rogge. Whoops.

In Rogge's view, the Olympics makes a certain quantum of "moral engagement" incumbent on the host country. "I would definitely ask China to respect this moral engagement," he said. The Chinese government's view is that its games should not be marred by " irrelevant political factors." Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama--and John McCain, sort of--have called on President Bush to stay away. Fat chance.

Pre-order now! Or don't. You'll be hearing about this here again.

Beliefnet's God-O-Meter (jeez, I could live without that bit of cutsie-poo) usefully calls attention to the Baptist Press Association's interview of the pastor of the North Phoenix Baptist Church that John McCain attends. Does that mean that Dan Yeary is John McCain's pastor? Well, what's clear from the interview is that John McCain has very much not joined the church he attends.

Yeary said McCain and then-pastor Richard Jackson had a conversation about membership and baptism when Cindy McCain joined the church. Likewise, Yeary said he continues to talk with the senator about his membership. Yeary did not reveal the details, but said the dialogue is ongoing.

“You have to be baptized by immersion to be a member [of North Phoenix],” Yeary said. “John and I have dialogued about that. … John is an Episcopalian, and he and his family attend North Phoenix Baptist Church when he is in town.”

Colin Powell's remarks on Jeremiah Wright in this morming's interview with Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America" serve notice.

"Rev. Wright is also somebody who has made enormous contributions in his community and has turned a lot of lives around," Powell said, "And so, I have to put that in context with these very offensive comments that he made, which I reject out of hand."

Powell added that he does not know Wright, and praised Obama's response.

"I think that Sen. Obama handled the issue well . . . he didn't look the other way. He didn't wait for the, for the, you know, for the storm to go over. He went on television, and I thought, gave a very, very thoughtful, direct speech. And he didn't abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith," Powell told Sawyer.

Powell, who has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate in almost every election since he retired from military service and public life, expressed admiration for Obama.

"It was a good (speech)," Powell said. "I admired him for giving it. And I agreed with much of what he said."

Mike Huckabee is nowhere near leaving the political scene. Instead, he is staying in the public eye and will be delivering a speech on April 15th called "In God We Trust: The Role of Faith in Politics." Huckabee's website has the ominous 24 style countdown clock for the event. Will it boom or bust?

Buried in the release of Quinnipiac's latest Pennsylvania poll is an item showing that white Catholics prefer Clinton over Obama by 65 percent to 29 percent. So far as I can see, that's the largest margin within any subgroup listed in the poll, which overall showed Clinton up by 6 points, 50 percent to 44 percent. Not much Casey effect among his co-religionists, evidently.

Barack Obama's first book has just been translated into Hebrew and appears in a full-page ad in Haaretz today. Thus far, among the other presidential contenders, no book by John McCain (e.g. Faith of My Abbas) has come out in Hebrew and, of the Hillary Clinton oeuvre, only Living History. It Takes a Shtetl, anyone? (Hat tip to Ron Kiener.)

David Brody claims to have the scoop on John McCain's outreach to evangelicals. The idea, it seems, is to put together a "committee of 50"--old and new style evangelicals but not the headliners who have no use for the Arizona senator. Brody's source talked about this in the future tense--what the campaign will be doing to put this list together. Forgive me, but it seems awfully late in the day to be getting around to this for a guy who's been a major GOP presidential aspirant for, oh, a couple of years or so. I'm not saying it's necessarily too late to do so. But this should have been put into place a year ago, when McCain was flush with money and showed every sign of being on his way to where he is now.

In today's New York Times, Neela Banerjee rounds up the Hagee story in a useful way. What's most interesting is that at this point Hagee is simply not commenting on his endorsement of John McCain, and the McCain campaign shows no interest in invigorating the connection. In his earlier strenuous effort to line Hagee up, McCain seemed to be attempting an end run around the old dogs of the Religious Right, the Dobsons and the Robertsons who seem pretty irreconcilable to him. Hagee, because of his MIddle East enthusiasms, seemed like just the guy to give McCain some evangelical street cred. But since Hagee's endorsement has created the biggest religion problem for McCain since his 2000 denunciation of those "agents of intolerance," it's not clear where he goes next, if he expects to generate the necessary enthusiasm among evangelicals come the general election. Maybe it's time to buy a few options on Mike Huckabee's vp chances.

In Israel today, Pastor John Hagee responded to Rabbi Eric Yoffie's critique, accusing the head of Reform Judaism of a "troubling lack of respect of the truth." Hagee denied being anti-Catholic and insisted he could back a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict (if Israel wants it). He had just returned from a Solidarity rally leading 1,000 Christians through the streets of Jerusalem shouting Hosannah! OK, that's not what they were shouting. Anyway, in a Q and A he defined Christian Zionism as " the belief that every Jewish person has the right of return to Israel and the right to live in peace and security within recognized borders."

Tough crowd in Philly.

In case you missed it, last week the Prescott (AZ) Daily Courier ran a full-page ad in the form of a letter from 26 social conservatives urging John McCain not to pick Mitt Romney as his vice presidential candidate. The signatories include old foes of Romney from Massachusetts and Mike Huckabee supporters, but the big name belongs to Paul Weyrich, who once upon a time endorsed Romney for president but then expressed his unhappiness with him for endorsing Sen. McCain. The gravamen of the letter is that Romney has been, ah, less than consistent in his embrace of social conservative positions. There's a website where you can add your name to the list. The sponsor of the ad is a PAC called "God is Not Government." Other newspaper ads are planned for McCain campaign stops.

The manifest point is that these guys do not think Romney can be trusted to carry their water inside an administration less than fully committed to them. The latent point (as suggested by Jonathan Martin in Politico) is that whatever happens, McCain's choice will have a leg up for the GOP nomination in 2012 (or maybe 2016). This is, to be sure, far from a round-up of the Religious Right's heaviest hitters. But their willingness to stick in the shiv is one more sign of the error of Romney's original decision to run as the rightest candidate of them all.

The number of people who believe Barack Obama is a Muslim has remained steady in the past month. A Pew Poll from late March had the number of misinformed at 10 percent. The Wall Street Journal poll from earlier in March put the number at 13 percent; all in all fairly steady.

A week from today, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but not, apparently, John McCain, will be participating in something called the Compassion Forum at Messiah College, near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. This forum has been whomped up as an opportunity, nine days before the Pennsylvania primary, for the presidential candidates to show that they care about the great humanitarian issues of all time and our time--poverty and Darfur, human rights and torture and, yes, abortion's on the list too. The thing is being coordinated (I guess that means organized) by Faith in Public Life and (here's the point) is being supported by a range of religious leaders across the ideological perspective.

OK, it's a bit left of center, in the evangelical mode: the Wallises and Siders are prominent. But the president of the Southern Baptist Convention has lent his name to the thing. There are Catholics and Jews and African American Protestants and Muslims. Conspicuous by their absence, however, are representatives of the Protestant mainline. There's one identified Episcopal clergy person, yes. But no one representing the National Council of Churches or any of the big mainline denominational bodies. Once upon a time, and not all that long ago, any interfaith operation with the word "compassion" in it would have had mainline Protestants at the center, organizing and coordinating and sponsoring. Didn't anyone think to invite them? Did they decline to participate? Was backing by some conservatives contingent on their not participating? Maybe this is simply another commentary on the decline of the mainline. But I'd like to know the back story.

Among the side issues stirred up by fracas over Pastor John Hagee's endorsement of John McCain was whether the Jewish community should or would insert itself into the the discussion. On the one hand, Hagee's alleged anti-Catholicism (OK, this blog has argued that there's it's bona fide) might induce Jews to their traditional denunciation of all forms of religious bigotry. On the other, there's the fact that Hagee has been a huge supporter of (and fund raiser for) Israel. Led by ADL president Abe Foxman's assertion that Hagee's endorsement was "not a Jewish issue," the community's initial reaction was essentially to sit on its hands. But now, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, has put the fat back in the fire by denouncing the Jewish alliance with Christian Zionists like Hagee--Hagee in particular--as bad for Israel. He urges Jews to stay away from Hagee's patented "Nights to Honor Israel."

Meanwhile, the conservative Catholic pundit Deal Hudson, author of a new book on "the growing power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States," reports in his blog on his visit to Hagee. Hudson notes Hageean perplexy: "Deal, how can people think I am anti-Catholic when my wife is an ex-Catholic, and a third of my congregation are former Catholics?" As we've noted in this space, it's precisely his church's effective mission to Latino Catholics that has driven his anti-Catholic message. Hudson doesn't seem to recognize that, however. He mostly want to make nice.

Whatever reservations one might have about the impact of viral YouTube soundbites on American political discourse, the current media environment is a fabulous educational machine when things really get cranked up. For the past month, the national course has been Religion 246: The Black Church in America Today. It's a mid-level course, requiring a certain amount of application, and just in the past week there have been some great readings. On NPR's Fresh Air, Terry Gross undertook an exploration of Black Liberation Theology, interviewing James Cone, the Union Theological Seminary professor who invented the thing, and his student, University of Chicago Divinity School Professor (and Trinity UCC member) Dwight. Hopkins. Hopkins contrasted Trinity's Jeremiah Wright with prominent black prosperity gospel preachers like Crespo Dollar, Eddie Long, and T.D. Jakes, not favorably to the latter. Jakes himself turns out has a blog of his own, where he posted something between a distancing of himself from Wright and an apologia for the man. Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune published (among many other things on the subject) an op-ed by one of the few white members of Trinity that shows Wright operating in the pastoral--as opposed to the prophetic--mode. And in the current New Yorker, Kalefa Sanneh takes readers inside Trinity over Easter weekend. On RateYourMedia.com, I'm a happy camper.

Al Jazeera has an intersting video of young Palestinians in Gaza who are phone banking for Barack Obama.

It has been 37 days since people started paying attention to Jeremiah Wright. Today, Time has a story about how Obama found his way to TUCC.

Jonathan Martin sees a shying away in today's Politico.

JTA story--about what you'd expect.

Thanks to people like E.J. Dionne, Amy Sullivan, and (I'm afraid) present company, the new storyline on religion and politics is that, yes, Virginia, the Democrats get it. Recognizing that their party has suffered on the short end of the religion gap, seeing that Democratic candidates do well if they take their faith out from under the bushel, the party establishment and leading presidential aspirants have, this cycle, gotten with the program. This is a really cool narrative, quite apart from the wishful thinking of those who hope it may be so.

But life is rarely so simple--and big political coalitions do not transform themselves overnight. I've been poking around a little, and it seems that behind the media scrim, where the tussle for attention and resources takes place, many Democratic worker bees have not had the big conversion experience. The party, sure, would like to have it both ways--appealing to the faith-based even as they hold on to the strong bloc of the secularist faithful. But who gets the extra hire at the DNC--Catholic Outreach or EMILY's List or the GLBTQ crowd? This bifurcated undertaking is, apparently, most problematic within the Obama campaign, which does not lack for people happy to let religion be baracketed off, so to speak, as just a black thing. Even as Obama himself has pointed to those who worship an awesome God in the blue states, outreach to religious voters has reportedly been shortchanged, and been far less effective than in the Clinton campaign. So perhaps it's no accident that she has been doing very well, thank you, with white Christians, both Catholic and otherwise, while the Illinois senator has (poll after exit poll shows) done far better among the religiously uninvolved.

In a word, reports of the demise of hard secularism in the Democratic Party have been exaggerated. Just as (pace Jim Wallis) have reports of the demise of the Religious Right in the GOP (update: as here).

Hat tip (a little belatedly) to Beliefnet's Dan Gilgoff for his reporting on the Clinton and Obama campaigns' outreach efforts to Catholics, including new staff hires.

Today's New York Sun features Russell Berman's interview with Hillary Clinton's sometime pastor Edward Matthews, who retired 10 years ago from the Methodist church that she attended in Little Rock when she was the gubernatorial spouse there. In a genial way, Matthews more or less speaks up in defense of Jeremiah Wright, as well as of his former parishioner, who injected herself into the controversy by saying that she would not have remained in a Wright-led church. The kicker:

"It would be totally out of character for her to say, ‘I’m going to leave a church because I’m mad at Jeremiah Wright,’” Mr. Matthews said. “She’s just simply saying that if these were ongoing, regular kind of things, I probably would not stay a member of that church. That doesn’t mean I would quit liking him or quit respecting him or quit wanting him to be able to say what he wants to say.”

Lest you think abortion has disappeared as an issue this campaign season, Hillary Clinton's visit to Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pa., has drawn a protest from the local Catholic bishop, Donald W. Trautman, who criticized the college for not "reflecting the pro-life stance of the Catholic Church." In line with the widespread position of the church hierarchy that pro-choice politicians not be invited to speak at Catholic educational institutions, Trautman said he would as a result not attend the Mercyhurst's graduation ceremonies this year. (The colleget, founded by the Sisters of Mercy in 1926, proclaims its "Catholic identity" in is its mission statement.)

Meanwhile, in his Washington Post column today, Michael Gerson assails Barack Obama for "abortion extremism" for criticizing last year's Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of bans on "partial-birth abortion" as well as opposing legislation to protect the lives of fetuses that survive abortion procedures. No doubt, abortion will remain a bright line between the Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns this year. The question is: How much will it matter to the voters?

A letter making the case for Obama, taking particular pains to defend his handling of the Wright affair. The signatories include some rabbis, politicians, and professors, but Ami Eden of the JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) points out that the biggest shots in Pennsylvania Jewry are backing Clinton--and promises that they will be heard from shortly.

As Reid suggested, Wayne Slater's piece on John McCain's "quiet" courtship of Catholics in yesterday's Dallas Morning News is pretty good. The evidence of the courtship is rather slim, however: 10 staffers contacting Catholic voters in Florida. That includes lot of Cuban-Americans--a natural McCain constituency. I'd have liked to see more evidence of some kind of concerted approach--like: Is anybody in charge of Catholic outreach in the McCain campaign? The fact that McCain did well among Catholics in the GOP primaries, when he barely had a campaign staff, is evidence of not much of anything in the way of active courtship.
UPDATE: Here is the list of McCain's Catholic leadership team which includes some movers and shakers. Notable players include; Warren Sweeney former exec. dir. National Right to Life Committee, former OK Gov. and Chairman of the Catholic Bishops Review Board Frank Keating, and Martin Dannenfelser former VP of the Family Research Council.

Turning away from the presidential race momentarily, Al Gore is playing matchmaker to an unlikely couple: Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton. The two have agreed to appear together in advertisements as part of Gore's 300 million dollar campaign to raise awareness about climate change. Sharpton didn't believe the former Vice President was serious, "At first I thought he was kidding. When I found that he was not kidding, I said sure, and I flew down to do the shoot. And I thought it was an important statement because I think that, if unlikely people coming together can get people talking about the environment, then we would be less than who we say we are in our respective careers if we didn't try to push that conversation." Robertson said he enjoyed learning about Gore’s religious background "Well, I didn't know that Al was a boy preacher with the Church of God in Christ, but he was. That's where he got some of his skills. And he's a terrific guy.”

Last week, the Forward played Jew/Not a Jew with the Democratic superdelegates and came up with 74 of them. Nearly half (36) have declared for Hillary Clinton, while only a dozen are in Obama's camp. (The balance are thus far neutral.) This is pretty much what I would have expected, but it's nice to see the tally. The most interesting quote comes from Ira Forman, the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council: “Politics in America has become a Jewish profession, just like arts and the law...We now are overrepresented in all these areas.” Well, ok, but something shy of 10 percent of the superdelegates in a party where Jews constitute maybe five percent of the members is pretty modest over-representation as such things go.