Brody Question: As you seek or preach unity during your campaign, you recently gave a speech to your church body where you said, "Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us." Some Evangelicals were taken aback at what they considered the harsh rhetoric. What was your intention when you said that and why did you feel it needed to be said?

Senator Obama: My intention was to contrast the heated partisan rhetoric of a distinct minority of Christian leaders with the vast majority of Evangelical Christians - conservatives included - who believe that hate has no place in our politics. When you have pastors and television pundits who appear to explicitly coordinate with one political party; when you're implying that your fellow Americans are traitors, terrorist sympathizers or akin to the devil himself; then I think you're attempting to hijack the faith of those who follow you for your own personal or political ends.

But as I said in my speech, it's critically important to understand that these are the "so-called" leaders, not the real leaders. The real leaders are clergy and lay folks who are living out their faith every day in ways large and small, trying their best to determine how best to serve God and their fellow man. They may not agree with me on every issue, they may not even support me in an election (heaven forbid), but they know that hate has no place in the hearts of believers.

Still, Obama can improve still further. This answer is inadequate, especially in the highlighted parts:

Brody Question: There is the so-called "religious left" in this country that focuses primarily on social justice issues and there is the so-called "religious right" in this country that focuses more on personal salvation and the life and marriage issues. Some on the right believe that Evangelicals shouldn't be the only ones moving left. Rather, the left needs to move toward the middle as well and not just put the focus on their issues. What is your plan to bring these two sides together?

Senator Obama: Well, these are difficult problems and there are no easy solutions. But I think that there are some lessons that both progressives and conservatives might learn. For progressives, I think we should recognize the role that values and culture play in addressing some of our most urgent social problems. As I've said many times before, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed aren't simply technical problems in search of a ten-point plan. They're rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man. [The question to Obama is simple - where does he get the idea that progressives do not "recognize the role that values and culture play in addressing some of our most urgent social problems? It is simply a false Right Wing talking point and Obama needs to stop doing this. This is what I mean when Obama casts himself as an Other-Dem, because HE implies that HE understands this while other progressives do not. He is wrong, and harmfully wrong.]

For example, I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby. But I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix. So solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I think progressives would do well to take this to heart. [ Again Obama perpetutes the Right Wing myth. HE needs to stop it.]

For my friends on the right, I think it would be helpful to remember the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy but also our religious practice. . . .

. . . Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.

The last graf actually identifies a problem Obama seems to have - the inability to comprehend that values do not stem only from faith. It is a blind spot for him.

In addition, Obama still seems to worship at the altar of "nonpartisanship":

Brody Question: Senator Obama, thank you for entering The Brody File. Many candidates are talking about hope, change, a brighter future, but why do you believe your campaign is resonating across the country?

Senator Obama: You know, I think Americans are hungry for a different kind of politics - the kind of politics based on the ideals this country was founded upon. The idea that we are all connected as one people. That we all have a stake in one another. We've had too many years of bitter partisanship, of lobbyists and influence peddlers with cash and connections determining what goes on in Washington.

I'm putting forward workable, practical solutions to address our common problems, from our health care crisis to bringing a responsible end to the war in Iraq. But I'm also talking to Americans about how we can come together in ways bigger than any ideological agenda or corporate bottom line. I think this approach is resonating with millions of Americans.

These are nice sounding words but they do little, in my view, to persuade Americans that the Democratic agenda is the best one for America. It does little toconvinced Americans that the Democratic agenda is superior to the Republican agenda, that Democratic candidates are superior to Republican candidates.

It basically fails what I call the Texeira-Halpin test:

The five postulates for the politics of definition -- the guideposts, questions, and "lines in the sand," so to speak, that need to be drawn out in order to craft better politics -- are as follows:

(1) The starting point for all political organizing and campaigns should be: "What are my core beliefs and principles and how do I best explain them to supporters and skeptics alike?"

(2) Every political battle, both proactive and defensive, should represent a basic statement of progressive character and present a clear, concise contrast with conservatives. Do not blur lines.

(3) All issue campaigns and agenda items are not equal. Progressives should focus their efforts on issues that can simultaneously strengthen the base and appeal to centrist voters. Progressives must be willing to make sacrifices and tradeoffs -- in terms of coalition building and budgetary concerns -- to achieve their most important agenda items.

(4) Escalate battles that expose the extremism of the right or splinter their coalition. [Follow-up: When confronted with the right's social, cultural, or national security agenda, the absolute worst response is to fail to combat these caricatures or to explain one's position directly to voters, regardless of the popularity of the position.]

(5) Every political action should highlight three essential progressive attributes: a clear stand on the side of those who lack power, wealth or influence; a deep commitment to the common good; and a strong belief in fairness and opportunity for all.

On 1, Obama seems to highlighting his lack of beliefs (which is false of course). On 2, Obama is arguing for anti-contrast, for blurring the lines. On 3, Obama seems to reaching past the base and even centrist voters to reach for the right. On 4, Obama is defusing a known Republican weakness, its extremist base and ideology. On 5, Obama does well. But 1 out of 5 does not cut it. At least, not for me.