Obama Should Not Betray His Base to Woo "Values Voters"

In her editorial “Why VP Choice is Crucial for Values Voters,” Tara Wall first argues for a more accurate public perception of evangelical voters. She references a Pew Research study which found that Black and Hispanic voters--groups often ignored in the usual view of white, religiously-minded voters--were actually more likely to report a religious affiliation than white voters. After hypothesizing that Barack Obama’s “wide appeal and overwhelming lead in the black community” may be in part due to the fact that he is “a man of faith,” the article goes into a discussion of what both candidates should do to vie for the support of these “values voters.” 

At this point Wall’s argument shifts from a balanced appeal for equality to a biased attack on Barack Obama. She faults him for positions he takes that distance him from the specific stances of the religious right, ignoring the fact that he would betray his own base by adopting them.

Wall suggests that Obama would “benefit from a socially opposite vice presidential nominee,” while McCain’s selection of a liberal running mate would lead to a “revolt the likes of which he cannot afford.” While values voters would certainly want both candidates to pick running mates who share their views, Wall ignores the fact that for the most part, Obama’s supporters are in line with his liberal views and would balk at a conservative running mate, just as McCain’s would at a liberal one. She calls Obama “oblivious,” because “the majority of Americans are opposed to abortion,” but the majority of Obama supporters are certainly not opposed to it, and even though Wall might not be happy about it, they currently outnumber McCain supporters according to recent polls. 

Her language becomes increasingly transparently slanted against Obama as the article concludes, as she claims that even pro-choice voters “have a hard time wrapping themselves around the Illinois senator’s extreme views,” and that Obama “lost points with his out-of-touch response to the most innocuous question on abortion posed by Pastor Rick Warren.” The question: “When does a baby have human rights” is not nearly as “innocuous” as Wall says. Using the word “baby” clearly implies that life begins at conception, and emphasizing “human” rights further suggests that a fertilized egg is a human being from the start. This is a position that Barack Obama, as well as a large percentage of the American public, disagrees with.  

Wall’s writing betrays her evangelical and conservative bias, and while she positions herself as an impartial observer, commenting on what each candidate might do to increase their chances of winning the election, she views Obama solely through the lens of the religious right. Rather than proposing what each candidate should do to win, she instead advocates what she personally wants them to do.