The Matthew 25 Network raises points similar to the ones made in Jean's essay and asks those who agree to sign a petition at
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5167/t/3594/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=447

An excerpt:

If you watched Governor Sarah Palin's address to the Republican National Convention, we're sure you were as disappointed as we were in the tenor and content of the speech.

As Christians, we are called to be respectful and loving toward our neighbors, honoring their intentions even if we disagree. We are also called to be truthful in all things, to "put away falsehood" (Eph 4:25) and refrain from slandering, belittling, or speaking out of contempt for anyone.

If these are the standards God has set for us in our personal lives, our church communities, and our neighborhoods, how much more so should they be for those who choose to be in the public eye? Shouldn't we expect our brothers and sisters in politics to also speak the truth in love and to extend respect and goodwill even to those who disagree with them?

It's because of these standards, and because Governor Palin is so public about her Christian faith, that the Matthew 25 Network found her address at the Republican National Convention so disappointing. We call on her not only as a political figure, but as a prominent Christian, to commit herself to campaigning in good faith, with love and respect for her political opponents and a strong commitment to truth-telling.

Please join religious leaders Brian McLaren, Douglas W. Kmiec, Rev. Dr. Susan B. Thistlethwaite, Vince Miller, Peter Vander Meulen, Rev. Dr. Derrick Harkins, Bart Campolo, Sharon Daly, Rev. Wilfredo De Jesus, and Delores Leckey by signing on to the statement.

I think a reason the religious left are overlooked is politically they're not unique: they vote with the secular left just like the RC right (a minority of RCs) vote with the Protestant right.

Obama's the liberal Protestants' candidate.

But it's the sliver of less aligned people who still vote, from the middle, who will decide this election. It's too close to call.

- libertarian staying home

Were the sarcastic speeches at the Democratic Convention by avowed non Christians?

Sarcasm is part of political speech.

My perception is that the reactions to Palin's speech have more to do with the hearer's perception than with what was said. (The same could be said of Obama's speech - i.e., how it was heard by those not inclined to agree with him - except that Palin's selection appears to have the chance of being a game changer and that causes great anxiety among Obama's supporters.) As long as supporters of Obama continue to react viscerally to the Palin phenomenon they will do more damage than good for their candidate - because there are many voters on the fence who found the speech effective and the person delivering it likable, and they will be and are turned off by these reactions.

Let's do an objective analysis of Palin's speech and Obama's and decide which was more negative, creepy, snarky, sarcastic or inaccurate. Here's a start that's out there ready to critiqued:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_31-2008_09_06.shtml#1220590175

As to what Palin about the war let's not be reductionist. She did not say she knew what God's plan was, nor did she pray that God support the US in Iraq. From NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/us/politics/06church.html?_r=1&em=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1221152642-yFPHeK5j3sIqLUfAVtQmGA

She also told the group that her eldest child, Track, would soon be deployed by the Army to Iraq, and that they should pray “that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.”

That was Sarah Palin speaking as a parent who happened to be a governor, speaking to a group of youth leaders at her church. I don't know that we can extrapolate from there to what she believes about a national leader invoking God's plan in government foreign and domestic policy.

See also:
http://www.kansas.com/opinion/castillo/story/525413.html
"I've honestly answered the questions on what my personal views are on things like abortion and a lot of controversial issues," Palin said in 2006. "I won't hesitate to answer those questions about what my personal views are, but I am not one to be out there preaching and forcing my views on anyone else."

Sounds like Biden to me.

On the "bridge to nowhere" let's have the facts, please.

Biden and Obama voted for it twice. McCain voted against it.

The Democrats have tried to make the point that Palin only turned against the bridge when it become easy for her to do so -- on the argument the Senate told Alaska they could spend it as they wished. But even then the NYT back in March 2007 had doubts Palin would turn against the bridge. She did: Regardless of the ridicule about the bridges as a pork-barrel binge, there are political facts that have kept hope alive for those who believe the projects are necessary for Alaska to grow economically. To direct the federal financing to other projects, for example, would require action by Gov. Sarah Palin, a Republican, and the State Legislature. It would also mean undoing the work of the powerful Congressional delegation, led by Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young, both Republicans, who secured the money for the bridges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/06bridge.html

Palin has accepted earmarks in the past. Obama ranks high in getting earmarks for his state. Palin has joined her running mate in opposing earmarks, and that's a good thing. Obama and Biden have not changed.