One of the most commented upon aspects of the Democratic Presidential Primary in Pennsylvania, which breathed new life into the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton, was the overwhelming support given to her by Catholic voters. Oddly enough, few observers seemed surprised by it.

Yet, if those Catholic voters had cast their ballots primarily out of their Catholic concerns, there is no reason why the outcome should have been so strongly in her favor.

On the basis of distinctly Catholic issues, like the defense of the life of the unborn, of the traditional definition of marriage, and of free choice in education, there doesn’t seem to be very much difference in the positions taken by either Clinton or Barack Obama.

Either, if nominated, would be compliant with the agendas of such powerful interests groups as NARAL, various gay-lesbian organizations, and the National Education Association, which are so incompatible with Catholic values and interests.

Significantly, Robert Casey, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, a Catholic whose father was so brutally snubbed by the Democratic national Party in the heyday of Clinton administration because of the right to life position, supported Obama.

However, most of the voters who had contributed to his defeating the equally devout and pro-life incumbent, Republican Rick Santorum, in 2006, defied his appeal this time and voted for Clinton.

How can this Catholic vote for Clinton be explained? Actually there is an easy answer. The pollsters, who calculate how Catholics voted, simply record as Catholic anyone who says he or she is a Catholic, just as they tend to record the interviewee’s ethnicity or race.

But just the labeling of oneself as Catholic, even if one has been baptized, is scarcely an indication that one’s political attitudes are prompted by religious considerations.

A more refined poll taking – which one would scarcely expect to be undertaken under the pressure of journalistic deadlines – follow the question as to the voters’ religion with a question or two about the degree to which their religious identity influences their vote, as well as the degree to which they practice their religion.

There have been studies of earlier elections, for instance, which reported that the more regular churchgoers among Catholic voters were inclined to vote Republican, primarily because of the GOP’s emphasis on traditional social values.

It must be acknowledged that many devout Catholics are moved by the Church’s commitment to peace and social justice. Such concerns, which have religious inspiration, prompted them to vote differently. Probably such “peace and justice” Catholics voted for Obama and looked with displeasure at Clinton’s “hawkish” record in the Senate, regardless to her more recent rhetoric.

At the same time, while many devout Catholics did vote for Clinton, their vote might have been prompted by other than religious considerations. Many of them have been political conservatives, maybe even crossovers from the Republican Party, who were following the recommendation of radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, to register as Democrats and vote for Clinton in order to drag out the nomination struggle; a tactic he labels “Operation Chaos.”

While not all of the Party transferors were so moved, it is probable that the substantial amount of them were what Limbaugh delights in calling his “operatives.”

However, most of the Catholics who voted for Clinton were lifelong Democrats. But they, like many non-Catholics Democrats, were what have been labeled “Reagan Democrats,” that is voters generally appreciative of the social entitlements that commenced under the New Deal, but also anxious about national security and domestic social disorder.

Part of the later includes challenges to traditional moral values, especially regarding marriage and sexual behavior. Some of the enthusiasms that flourished in the Democratic Party in the late 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s, and continue to flourish, alienated them, especially when casting their votes in presidential elections.

The longer the campaign drags on and the more liberal and even radical Obama appears, especially as more is known of his earlier career in community and political activism, “Reagan Democrats” will be skeptical of his claim to be a transforming or unifying figure able to cross race, class or party lines.

The extraordinary Clinton family capacity to triangulate – that is, to appear as the reasonable middle ground – is enabling her to profit from their discomfort with Obama.

But these “Reagan Democrats” seem to have forgotten, or Hillary Clinton has been able to blur for them, her earlier reputation as a child of the late 1960s and a participant in the same phenomenon that provoked their disenchantment with the Democratic Party. If Barack Obama were not in the political scene, it seems hard to imagine them voting for her anymore than they voted for John Kerry.

However, regardless of how well she performs in the remaining primaries, and despite my own position in an earlier column about the legitimacy of superdelegates being able to vote as they see fit at the convention, it seems likely indeed that Obama will be the nominee.