Well, first, pander implies something insincere, while I would argue that Obama has been railing against the Rights dominance of the evangelical vote for years, and talking about his own faith for that long. It happens that evangelicals are a bit disillusioned, and their old war horses (Dobson, et. al.) are being put to pasture so he has an unusual confluence to change the electoral situation, sort of like what Rove did with W. Any 'ricochet' I think would in fact be to a group that Obama is overtly courting, so not sure you can call it this. The last sentence is telling, rocochet pander refers to the cynical, highly unlikely of success effort that 'reflects well' (ricochets) on the panderer to a different group. But you could either say thats true of every outreach effort, or reserve it for the cynical ones like Bush's outreach to blacks.

Jeff Greenfield had an interesting take on this on Slate, whereby Obama's best bet may be simply to blunt the really zealous opposition, rather than necessarily win them over to his side.  www.slate.com/.../2194325

Pandering just means telling people what they want to hear, because it helps you get their vote.  I'm sure Obama is truthful and sincere when he speaks to Evangelicals about his faith....but let's face it - he's telling them what they want to hear.  

And - if we were honest about it - wouldn't we agree that it probably isn't a good thing to campaign based on religion?  I mean - was it a good thing that Mitt Romney had to practically apologize for being a Mormon?  Isn't it a bad thing that these rumors about Obama being a Muslim are so damaging to him that people call it a "smear?"

I think Obama is smart enough to realize that religion is too deeply entangled with politics, and that it would be very good if we could tone it down.  But he's out there selling on the basis of religion anyway.  Because, telling people what they want to hear - even when you know you shouldn't -  works.

What is that, if not pandering?

Neil

  It may sound quaint or banal but ol' Saul said it decades ago, "...the ultimate key to acceptance by a community is respect for the dignity of the individual you're dealing with. If you feel smug or arrogant or condescending, he'll sense it right away, and you might as well take the next plane out. The first thing you've got to do in a community is listen, not talk, and learn to eat, sleep, breathe only one thing: the problems and aspirations of the community."

  I like the term 'ricochet' but the above attitude might need to account for inviting unintended targets into your line of fire even if an invitation wasn't sent.

 Or, is there an option? In this current age, no message is can be so focused that it won't be noticed or fanned so everyone will see-hear it.  Anything and everything one says better have a ring of sincerity and like it or not, candidates words will be judged. What I call the Genuine Scale is a standard which everyone will apply, not just those a candidate chooses.

  I doubt Obama is naive so blunting the opposition is in his arsenal.  But I don't think any candidate has the luxury of choosing targets let alone hoping a secondary group is listening. The challenge is to not appear that any group is too special (it won't be a secret).  But few people aren't attracted to those who listen and learn. With that attitude, everyone is a target.

perhaps this is the truest (most effective) form of the phenomenon of "moving to the center during the general election"?

I have a problem both with the use of the term "pander" and with the premise necessary to your piece that Obama obviously can't win over evangelicals.  I think that in order to make that assumption, you have to have a rather one dimensional view of the white evangelical community.

I don't know how many Jim Wallises and Rich Ciziks make up the evangelical community, but those are people who can clearly be won over to Obama's cause because the Democratic agenda is friendlier to the issues near and dear to their hearts like social justice, poverty, environmental stewardship and the Iraq war.  There have been some recent pieces detailing how younger evangelicals are more likely to tip toward the Wallis/Cizik orientation as oppose to the Dobson/God/Gays/Guns point of view.

I'm a little fuzzy on the ways and means (wheys and curds?) of "Ricochet Pander," but clearly it would make a great replacement name for Nancy Berkowitz, the freshly-hatched ingenue plucked from a New Jersey summer stock production of "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof" and now sitting doe-eyed beside her Hollywood agent's desk as he pitches her to the casting agent of a straight-to-DVD slasher flick.

So if you're kicking back one weekend night with an amusing little IPA and the remote, and the opening credits end with "and introducing Ricochet Pander," you read it here first.

When progressives question Obama using stock attack Rethug phrases like "pander", it just helps the Republican attack machine "catapult the propaganda"!

I do agree that Obama's sharp turn to the right has me and other progressives worried about whether he's turning into just another typical pol and tarnishing the populist image he pushed during the primary battle.

I suggest you choose your words more carefully from now on.