Clinton's gun and religious panders will ultimately hurt her

Senator Clinton's biggest flaw is her tendency to over-reach.  Not satisfied with fomenting controversy over Obama's "bitter" comments in San Francisco, Clinton felt the need to drive a spike into the controversy.  Had she been smart, she would have left her comments at her initial salvo.  The pundits were doing a lot of the work for her.  The occasional reminder via questions asked by the media, would have served her purpose well rather than continuing to try to press her advantage.

Instead, Clinton chose to use the opportunity to pander to the very voters he was most likely to offend, religious conservatives and gun owners.  Her story about shooting a gun as a young child, however, was the the verbal equivalent of Dukakis getting in a tank and driving around a base.  

GUNS

I knew at the time she had made a huge mistake that would come back to haunt her.  My biggest question, was how quickly.  I knew that most Republicans were going to bite their tongue, in hyperventilating hope that she can extend or actually win this contest.  So they were understandably silent.  Why ask her now if they could bury her in sniper fire homilies and deride her gun credentials in a general election.  

Unfortunately for her, it didn't take long.  On Sunday a man asked when the last time it was that she shot a gun.  In typical HRC fashion she dismissed the comment as irrelevant.  For some reason, Clinton felt the need to ally herself with gun owners, who are least likely to believe her much less support her. Sadly, it is not irrelevant. Gun owner don't buy her pretense.  And it is a pretense and an obvious pander that no self-respecting gun owner will ever believe.  She's not one of them and never will be.  Furthermore, dismissing the question was as equally condescending as she accuses Obama of being.

GOD

Her faith comments will undermine her as well.  Many social conservatives do not buy her "I am a person of faith" assertions.  Whether she is ultimately religious or not is not the point.  The fact that Obama is more comfortable talking about his faith is.  This was put on full display Sunday night at the Compassion Forum.

Clinton doesn't speak power to religion.  My mother and step-father are religious conservatives, and through long hours of hearing them speak about their faith, I recognize that Obama just comes off as more religiously fluent.  

For instance, when Clinton spoke on Climate change, she didn't really tie her views on the subject directly back to her "faith."   Instead it was mostly a repetition of talking points and pie in the sky promises about cushioning the blow to the middle class.  Obama, on the other hand, related everything back to the story of Genesis and the concept of stewardship, which many religious moderates and evangelical liberals have used as justifications for a faith based approach to environmentalism.  What I wonder is if seriously religious folks will see Obama's as the more honest religious answer, or whether her obvious pander, devoid of religious inspiration, will work?

Personally, I think Obama won that round by a mile because he didn't attack her and spoke from a perspective of faith, while reassuring Christians about his "bitter" comments and the Rev. Wright issue.

Meanwhile she took the opportunity to attack Obama, which seemed inappropriate to the venue, and didn't seem to connect with the crowd on a spiritual level.  My perception is that he knows how to interweave faith into his answers with more conviction than she can, so she avoids the discussion.

God and guns are two subjects I believe Clinton made a mistake wading into, b/c she is just not as comfortable in those waters as she would like to pretend, and ultimately, his gaffe aside, Obama is more fluent and capable of connecting with these voters.