I will try to stick to your question but I should warn you up front that I'm a Huckabee fan.

Evangelicals are not flocking to Gov. Huckabee because they have adopted the perspective of the world in which they live rather than the world to which they should aspire. It is in this environment that electability takes precedence over principle or faith.

Gov. Huckabee is a unique candidate, a conservative who empathizes with the poor because he was poor himself and was the chief executive of a relatively poor state for more than ten years. He was effective enough for Time Magazine, no friend of conservative evangelicals, to name him one of the best governors in America just two years ago. His children's health care programs and emphasis on music and the arts in education make him stand out from the typical Republican crowd, and he was the only candidate at the recent economic debate who said the economy was failing the working people of Michigan and other areas of the country in crisis.

He is getting positive press and acknowledgements even from Democrats. Bill Clinton said he's the "only dark horse that's got any kind of chance...He's the best speaker they've got." DeWayne Wickham of USA Today says he's "the candidate with the best chance of expanding his party's base...unlike many recent Republican presidential candidates, Huckabee doesn't come across like a neo-Klansman on the topic of race...Huckabee's responses to racially sensitive questions suggest that he could win more black votes in a general election than any GOP presidential candidate in a long time.”

Sorry for going on so long but I really believe the evangelical community is wrong not to line up behind this man. He could become a top-tier candidate overnight with their help. Maybe there's some truth to what Verrmonter says about them shunning him for broadening the evangelical agenda to include "creation care" (the environment) and caring for poor children.

How many times does Gov. Huckabee have to tell people that he's running for President, not the school board or chief theologian, and therefore won't be writing the creation story into our textbooks? One of the reasons I don't come on these boards often because of the hostility expressed toward people of faith. It's almost as if people running for public office aren't allowed to have religious beliefs, and that's a perversion of the Founding Father's intent. They were against the establishment of a government religion but they welcomed the practice of faith in a free society and established the right for us to do so in the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). The principle of "a wall of separation between Church & State" expressed in a letter between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists does not forbid individuals, including our political leaders, from having faith and practicing it in their daily lives. They cannot create a state religion (see the German Christians and the Nazi Party, or today's Islamic states), but they can be religious if they so choose.

I admit that some of my Christian brethren have been more strident about their beliefs than others, but they're not perfect, just human. I always tell people to look to the original accounts for the real story, not so they'll convert but so they'll understand that faith is more than what they see portrayed in the media.

I am what some would characterize as a conservative Christian voter. I am dismayed at the lack of a front-runner among my bloc, but it is our own fault. As your blog points out, many of the prominent Evangelical leaders are divided, as are the voters, according to polls. So that means our reasons for voting must be divided, too. Some are diehards who will strictly vote their conscience regardless of electability; others want a winner and will hold their nose to some extent.
I've always been the former. In 1996 I voted for Howard Phillips for president. The reason I am that way is because a candidate's electability is the one factor that the voters control. There are few statements more absurd than "We won't vote for him because no one will vote for him." If the considerable Evangelical bloc were to unite behind a sheepdog, that sheepdog would have a legitimate shot. So as a member of that group, I'm supporting Mike Huckabee (not that he's a sheepdog). If the only objection to him is he's not electable (that's the only one I've seen), then we have the power to change that if we stand by our convictions. The more people talk about him, the more people vote for him in the primaries, the more publicity he gets, then a greater number of people will take a look at him, and then he's a contender. That power lies solely with us. If we don't choose to use it, then we have no one to blame but ourselves.