The intersection of faith and politics can be perilous for candidates. One of Mrs. Clinton’s chief rivals, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, talks often of embracing Christianity as an adult and the power of faith to transform lives. But Mitt Romney, a Republican presidential contender, has struggled to overcome concerns among many Americans about his Mormon faith.

Long portrayed by critics as out of touch with religious voters, Mrs. Clinton is clearly intent on trying win some of them over. Her campaign, for example, has brought in Burns Strider, an evangelical Christian who headed religious outreach for Democrats in the House.

Mr. Strider and other supporters point to what they say is Mrs. Clinton’s long record in bringing religious values to the public arena — her support for religion-based social programs, co-sponsorship of a law prohibiting religious discrimination and efforts on behalf of children, the poor and those needing health care.

And while she supports abortion rights, she has made overtures to religious conservatives by expressing respect for opponents of abortion and calling for both sides to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Or I should say, here’s a wonderful story ABOUT their books by real-live professional writer Eric Alterman, who’s presently working on a “history of American liberalism.”

Of Schumer’s book he writes:

Schumer has compiled one of those laundry lists of problems facing middle-class voters, problems that he believes call for “a 50 percent solution.” He thinks we should be 50 percent safer from terrorist attacks, our children should be exposed to 50 percent less pornography on the Internet, and our students’ reading and math scores should be 50 percent higher. This may work as a slogan, but it is not, to put it mildly, an interesting philosophical argument. Who, to begin with, would oppose any of this? And why 50 percent? Why not 67 or 72?

Obviously, it’s a gimmick, and the real problem with poll-tested positions of this kind lies in agreeing on the means to address such issues and the likely trade-offs to be made along the way. Time and again, Schumer ignores these complications. Thus, he simply explains away the problem of raising students’ scores without “teaching to the test,” which is inherent in the No Child Left Behind program. (What’s more, he gives reviewers too-easy targets by offering solutions like — I kid you not — “a Schumer box,” to be put on all cellphone and electronic media player contracts, warning parents against porn.)

So maybe I’ll just read the good writing about the bad writing, instead of the actual writing, and wind up knowing and understanding a lot more that way?