Jim Lindgren at the Volokh Conspiracy is puzzled that the Obama campaign has been aggressively going after Stanley Kurtz, a right-wing hack who is trying to smear Obama by linking him to ex-60s radical bomber Bill Ayers, without making more vigorous efforts to denounce Ayers himself.  This comes perilously close to concern trolling, but I'll respond briefly:

1) The substance of Obama's response to these accusations is that he doesn't know Ayers all that well.  There's no particular reason Obama should be denouncing people he doesn't have any close connection with.

2) Accordingly, Lindgren's suggestion that this smear would go away if Obama were to denounce Ayers doesn't work:  the immediate response would be, if you're denouncing him, he must have been your close friend, so why didn't you do that before?

3) The fact that the Obama campaign is going after Kurtz, who is aggressively trying to smear Obama, is not surprising.  Lindgren's suggestion that the campaign should let the smear spread without comment is dubious:  millions of dollars are being spent, right now, to spread this smear. 

By way of comparison:  suppose I claimed that I had evidence that John McCain is under the influence of North Vietnamese mind control techniques, and tried to get booked on the Today show to discuss that.  According to Lindgren, the best course of action for the McCain campaign would be to denounce the North Vietnamese and say nothing at all about me.

Proposition 2:  A Democratic candidate's association with a socially conservative religious faith is generally of marginal or negative electoral utility.

Comment:  Nominating candidates who are members of a socially conservative religious faith entirely negates the ticket's ability to make intuitive appeals to liberal positions on social issues (e.g., "They want to ban all abortion!" "Get the government out of your business!").

Efforts to square the candidate's personally conservative religious views with his liberal stance (e.g., the Cuomo position on abortion) can only partially ameliorate the significant loss the ticket suffers as a result of losing the ability to make those arguments.

This is not to say that Democrats should not nominate members of conservative religious faiths; indeed, many such candidates will be very appealing.  However, as a matter of crude political strategy, it should not be assumed that such a candidate's religious affiliation will be an electoral plus.  It will almost certainly be a wash or a minus.

Proposition 1:  American "moderate" or "independent" voters are basically apolitical, and they vote because they feel it is their civic obligation, and not because they have any particular attachment to a political position.  They make judgments intuitively, responding positively to strong and straightforward statements of political position and negatively to verbose, carefully-crafted wonkery that "splits the difference" between two more extreme positions.

Example 1A:  Here are three positions on gay marriage:

1) Marriage is between a man and woman!

2) Blah blah blah equal respect blah blah blah special status of marriage in our society blah blah blah "civil union."

3) It's none of the government's business!  Let them get married!

The independent voter doesn't really want to think a lot about this issue, and will be attracted to positions 1 or 3, and will likely prefer either to 2.

Example 1B:  Here are three positions on health care:

1) Government can't do everything!

2) Blah blah many uninsured blah blah power of the market blah blah carefully considered this issue blah blah blah tax credits blah blah fully refundable.

3) Every other modern country has national health care!

Again, independent voters will be attracted to positions 1 or 3, and will likely prefer either to 2.