The NYTimes has a report on whether or not Hillary Clinton's faith is sincere or purely politically motivated and whether or not her religious beliefs (if sincere) are too liberal either way.Link />
First of all, without trying to sound too cynical, if Hillary is using faith based talk to reach out to voters, does that really make her any different than most other politicians? And if she's basically doing what any smart politician would, why does she receive more heat for it? 

Second of all, in the article she's being criticized by some because her denomination has focused more on social issues than internal salvation; if a person's religious faith is going to play a role in their political decisions, isn't it better for the country if their faith is based on social progress than personal redemption? While Jesus saving Bush from alcoholism might have changed his life, it has no effect on how that will affect what he does for the country's citizens. And when religious politicians who focus more on salvation, it tends to just lead to an un-Christian like, condescending attitude at best and horrible policies at worst that try to control the aspects of a person's life the government should have no say in. 

I really don't want another president who recounts their personal (two way?) discussions with God. And while I'd much prefer the religious talk be kept to a minimum in politics, it doesn't bother me if political allusions are used to reach out to those of faith as a common ground to reach shared progressive values.