Why would the campaign that takes it as a badge of honor to 'speak the truth' consider this a gamble? Can it be that sticking their heads in the lion's den as it were, bound to expose him as something less than the man for everyone?

Good post. I recommend that you check to make sure

your HRC write-in is legit-Some states do not allow it

or require that the candidate file to have her/his name

as a write in vote

Josie Ortez/AKA PumaFreak

David Axelrod and David Plouffe are partners in a

firm dedicated to getting African American candidates

elected. They were behind Deval Patrick in Massachusetts,

who is not too popular there.

Seeing as how Obama is a fabricated (like Bush) candidate

I wonder who chose whom.

Obama's campaign being a well run machine means no-

thing. Bush didn't break a sweat and ran a very disciplined

campaign. All that showed is that he knew how to win,

not how to govern.

JosieOrtez/AKA PumaFreak

Part of the evangelical constituency has seen the light and recognizes that in the last eight years their beliefs have been politicized by their leaders and the Republican Party. There was nothing Jesus hated more than hypocrites and to realize that they had mistakenly thrown their lot in with an evil band of big time hypocrites split this once solid group into pieces.

The question is: can Barack Obama successfully pull some votes to his side. I think yes.

First of all, a significant part of this group is African American. Right now they are pulling the lever for him..and my guess is based on their history of loyalty to candidates who win their hearts..They are sticking with him. Secondly, beneath that monolithic appearance evangelicals hearts do not beat as one. Most are not fundamentalist raving extremists any more that most Muslims are al-Queda.

In the University of Penn focus group doubts and fears about Obama appeared, but solidly even his detractors saw him as a good family man, a good father. Build on that.

My advise, let's have more conversations and less debates; I am with the guy who said bring on the town meetings.

McCain goes to the stump speech and POW stuff everytime. Of course he had quick answers at Pastor Rick's little get together: he used the proven stump laughlines and anecdotes..and every question was a soft ball down the middle for him. Obama had some explaining to do. I think there are folks in the evangelical community that are looking for new answers too. They may believe in "life" and not embrace Gay marriage, but quite a few of them know the realities behind unintended pregnancies and just as many have a loved one or a co-worker who has "a partner."

Where Obama has to work with these people is explaining why McCain's cold war world view of enemies, saber rattling, and blood for oil will not work anymore. Obama has the same challenge with evangelicals as he does with blue collars and older people..he needs to tell us that we must change. We must conserve. We must sacrifice.

All messages that have never been accepted by most Americans.

Obama needs to make the most compelling case that the time is now for belt-tightening and neighbors helping neighbors. We can not afford to lose four more years falling further behind the global community.

I know many Evangelicals have hearts, and I am willing to gamble that just as many have brains too.

David Axelrod and David Plouffe are partners in a firm dedicated to getting African American candidates elected. They were behind Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, who is not too popular there.

Are you trying to make some type of generic black candidate implication here? I was never a fan of Deval, but:

U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy and Gov. Deval Patrick topped the list of most popular Bay State politicians in a poll released this week.[...]
2. Patrick (D-Milton): 51 percent favorable, 36 percent unfavorable.
Also of note, 72 percent of respondents said the Red Sox should have traded Manny Ramirez. Fifteen percent opposed the idea and 14 percent were undecided.

http://www.politickerma.com/jeremyjacobs/609/kennedy-and-patrick-top-list-bay-state-s-most-popular-pols

Mr. Madden, if Barack Obama really wants “people [to] have good information” perhaps journalists should take the time to vet-out the legal and religions betrayals and hypocrisies he so cavalierly tosses over.

The fallacy of Obama’s opposition to marriage equality is a legal no-brainer that should not escape a second year law student. Just HOW many children have been left behind?! Why do journalists lap- up the spoon-fed pabulum that the Madison Avenue propagandists feed to them? I guess $400 million can buy just about anything in America including the brain-dead silence of a comatose press. Are the proverbial watch dogs now mere toothless pandering lap dogs?

Look folks, this is really, really, simple: Obama favors civil unions over marriage equality because he claims (1) it’s a 'state's rights' issue and that (2) his “deep faith” and “church history” dictate that marriage is between a man and a women.

Wall? What wall? Unlike the famous religion speech of JFK (obviously more talked about than read) that journalists cite in defense of Obama’s religiosity (JFK never flaunted his religion!) Obama is not willing, like JFK, to “solemnly swear” to uphold an “absolute separation of church and state" - JFK’s words not mine, go read the famous speech conveniently redacted by Obama’s lap dog journalists.

First, obviously, if the right to marry was a state’s rights issue then Loving v. Virginia (a Supreme Court case Obama is intimately familiar with) would have been decided differently, Virginia’s discriminatory marriage laws would not have been struck down, and Obama’s parents would have remained felons on over half the states. No-brainer!

When it comes to fundamental civil rights the “states rights” argument is classic Jim Crow segregationist rubbish. Perhaps Obama thinks same-sex couples are not 'persons' within the ambit of ‘due process’ and ‘equal protection’ clauses of the 14th amendment? Obama’s 'states' rights' argument was flatly rejected by the Supreme Court decades ago in Loving v. Virginia. Shame, shame, shame on this so-called “civil rights lawyer” who so unconscionably misrepresents the law - as if The People don’t already have enough reason to despise silver-tongued lawyers who exploit their ignorance to pull the wool over their eyes.

Second, not once has this ‘civil rights lawyer’ offered a LEGAL reason for denial of this fundamental civil right. Is it REALLY too much to ask that a so called civil rights lawyer proffer LEGAL reasons for denial of civil rights? Christian nation indeed! This might be a good place to vomit.

In fact, the only reason he has ever given for his intent to deny this 'fundamental' civil, secular, right to an entire class of his fellow-Americans is his religious beliefs, his "church history" and his "deep faith." With all due respect, on precisely what LEGAL basis can a so-called civil rights lawyer justify violating the First Amendment for the nefarious purpose of denying a fundamental civil right that is protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments? In case no one has noticed that is not one Constitutional violation but THREE! So far only one legal writer has spelled it out loud and clear, See "Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo," by John P. Mortimer, at http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73.

In light of the fact that Obama’s own Christian denomination and former pastor are openly, unequivocally, unabashedly, and un-apologetically in favor of full marriage equality (not mere ‘separate but equal' Jim Crow civil unions) Barack Obama can not blame his prejudice on his “church history” – gimmie a break. In fact Barack Obama has betrayed both his first legal principals as well as his own Christian denomination’s religious principals. This from a civil rights lawyer?! How convenient to blame his prejudice on his religion! To hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy, add betrayal, betrayal, betrayal.

If Barack Obama becomes president of the United States the proverbial wall between church and state will be about as effective as a screen door in a submarine. To quote Christopher Hitchens, "Mr. Jefferson! Build up this wall."