The Economist's columnist Lexington has a good essay on the attempt of Hillary Clinton to lead the Democrats to a reconciliation with religious American voters. Two good grafs:

The biggest problem for the Democrats is that many of their hard—core supporters would rather lose another election than court the religious vote. Mr Wallis worries about Democrats being depicted as secular fundamentalists, but that is not far off the truth. The number of people who deny any religious identification has doubled from 14.3m in 1990 to 29.4m in 2001—and many of them will do anything to stop the Democrats from drenching themselves with God. No pro—lifer has been allowed near a Democratic podium for years. Will People for the American Way allow the Democrats to let religion flourish in the public square? Will feminists allow them to compromise on abortion? Will the Hollywood crowd allow them to crack down on obscenity? Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio, two academics, point out that in 1996 and 2000 one in three white Democratic voters 'intensely disliked' Christian fundamentalists.

and

That does not mean that Mrs Clinton is wrong to try to recharacterise her party—and herself. Barack Obama, the new Democratic senator from Illinois, has a genius for religious rhetoric. And the religious right is always in danger of over—reaching or sounding shrill (as it did in rejecting Mrs Clinton's olive branch out of hand). But the coming battles over gay marriage and the Supreme Court will surely harden divisions, with the Republicans strengthening their grip on the religious vote and the Democrats banking on secular fundamentalists. Mrs Clinton is heading down the right path, but it will be a rocky one.

Hat tip: Real Clear Politics

Thomas Lifson  1 29 05