Nicely said, Phil, but the Culture War in this country is over: We Lost. Dodson is just fund raising by saying all the expected shibboleths. And the MSM will certainly spin things in Obama's favor.

Go see http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1817217,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-nation

When you have 57% of "evangelicals" thinking that "all roads lead to God" then they're not even hanging on to their own faith, and don't even know what they believe, and things are truely rotting from the inside out.

And you expect them to change the culture?

So after voting GOP all these years, we ended up with a handful of ashes.

I'm glad you weren't on CNN tonight defending Dobson's "fruitcake" attack on Obama. If you had, I would've expected you to have listened to ALL of Obama's 2006 speech at the Call to Renewal conference (not just the parts that Dobson conveniently pulled out to criticize).

I also assume you've heard all about Obama's "off the record" meeting in Chicago with lots of evangelical leaders (including Stephen Strang, Cameron Strang, T.D. Jakes, Franklin Graham, etc.). I haven't ready anywhere that Dobson was at that meeting. Perhaps he was, but if he's now saying he is "open to meeting with Obama" it sounds to me like Dobson didn't get an invitation to the party and now he's trying to rustle something up. That's what happens when you're interested in being close to power — and the (new) powerful don't ask you to dance. 

You're absolutely right about the shift from political influence to relational influence (or, as you put it, cultural engagement), but I think you're wrong about Obama's "move to the middle." Check the comments again from evangelical leaders who met behind closed doors with Obama. I think that's pretty revealing about who Obama is and where he's coming from. He gets this relational thing, and he's open to listening to and receiving input from people, even those (like me) whom he knows disagree with him on some issues. That shows me his true character and values, and those are values that I embrace, which is why I'm voting for Obama in November. 

Listen to the left – Matt Stoller, liberal activist and blogger says it gives activists “a strong reason not to trust him.”  The endorsement of Barrow really stoked anger on the left.  OpenLeft.com said, “It’s up to us to create a progressive check on Obama.”

It’s a fascinating change from his record of being the “most liberal Senator” according to the National Journal, and during a time when 58% of voters perceive him as liberal.   Don’t get me wrong – from a strategy perspective, moving to the center is a smart move.  But his own people are angry.  MoveOn.org  is petitioning its members to object to his support for the spy bill.

So it’s obvious from his positions during the primary (left of Hillary) that he’s taking a definite and strategic shift now that he's in the general.  The question becomes ‘why’?  

As I’ve said before, he’s good looking, articulate, and has a great presence on camera.  But on paper, any small business owner in America has more leadership experience.  For all of his posturing on “crossing the aisle” and “bringing America together,” show me a single time during his short career as a Senator when he did anything along that line.

You view his “change” to the center as the real Obama.  I think the record shows it to be a strategy move.  Simple as that.

Maybe the reason I'm not so bothered by Obama's move to the middle is because, as a more moderate voter, it's one I'm kind of glad to see. It is strategic, and I'm all for good strategy. And, in fact, I would argue that "his own people" (his "base" if you will) are more moderate-leaning (like me).

If Obama was "left" of Hillary during the primary, it was because Hillary went all guns, God, gas tax holiday, and glory at the end in a desperate attempt to win with white voters (which, sadly, worked to some degree). Obama didn't move, IMO. It was Hillary who shifted to the right. 

And I'm sorry, Phil, but "any small business owner in America has more leadership experience"? Look at Obama's track record again. President of the Harvard Law Review. Community Organizer. Senator. That's a bit more experience than the guy who just opened an ice cream stand. I like ice cream — a lot! — but I'm not going to vote for that guy to be President.

And another thing … ;-) … You say, "Show me a single time during his short career as a Senator when he did anything" to unify the country? My response: Have you been paying attention at all to this campaign?! Millions of people organized at the grassroots level. Millions of new voters entering the democratic process. Young and old. Men and women. Black and white and all ethnicities. Democrats and (former?) Republicans and independents (liberals? moderates?). I'd say there's been a monumental coming together behind his candidacy!

But support for more warrantless spying? Not gonna do it. I think MoveOn has a good reason to try and pressure Obama on that one.

I'm all for change but remember that means we as Christians must be willing to change as well.  And as Christians we need to keep in the forefront that change does not mean comprimise.

Thanks for turning down CNN to speak at ChurchMedia.Net.

"So my question is – how long before we realize that political power isn’t the best way to make cultural change happen? "

 Yes yes and amen.

When I say people are coming together behind his campaign, I don't think you can deny that millions of people are supporting him, from all persuasions and walks of life. To call that "pure smoke screen" is to deny the obvious, whether you agree with it or not. "Surface stuff" may be true. People are fickle and finicky. If Obama doesn't deliver on what his supporters are hoping/expecting from him, then yeah, that support could disappear, just as George W. Bush's support went from sky-high at 9/11 to the pits of what it is today. 

Anyway, I've been working full-time in various ministries for 12+ years, mostly in communication and media, promoting (if you will) the One who is worth promoting, the one who can change hearts. So please don't assume that my hopes for Barack Obama presidency in the political sphere means I am placing any hope in him in a spiritual sense.

And to say that he's "not trashing Obama" in a post like this, OK fine. "Trashing" is a bit strong of a term, but let's see … He's most certainly suggesting (based on the WSJ's research and analysis) that Obama is a moving to the middle simply because it is politically expedient … which shows a lack of character … which Phil alluded to … and Phil also threw in a pretty sharp jab about his experience (or lack thereof) … Come to think of it, I think Phil did do a little "trashing" here. What do you think? Maybe it's not me who's wearing the rose colored glasses.  ;-)

(I'm smiling as I type this, BTW, tongue firmly in cheek. Can't we all just get along?!)

Rather than focusing on the 57%, why not focus on the 43%?  They need to be bolstered and encouraged – not told the battle is over.

I don't expect that those 43% can change the culture, but I think that God can, and that He is – through the lives of those 43%. 

And I agree with Phil, and with your final point, Oengus.  If we trust in the Republican or the Democratic Parties to do anything but promote their own survival, we can just lay down our weapons and cloister together in some catecombs somewhere outside of Albuquerque.