He was simply lumping the doctor's involvement in determining physical harm to the mother with the doctor's involvement in determining psychic harm.

That's something he should put in writing, though, because people are creating and propogating their own interpretations., and some of tose are pretty wild.

I just keep wondering why the right is this desperate to promote Obama…it's just the most disturbing big red flag I've seen in quite some time.

Is there someone else they're afraid might take his place as nominee??

Why is this a surprise. He had to leave his church over this flap followed by Oprah Winfrey as well. He refused to wear the lapel pins while a member of this church who preaches that the white man is trying to keep the black man down. His pastor preached “God Damn America” to the shouts of hallelujah.

I think more the onus has fallen on him to prove his patriotism and that he does love America. His handlers understand this. If they did not he would still not be wearing lapel pins.

When in doubt, look at what he's done. OK, he worked for minority conditions in Chicago. Also in Chicago he ruthlessly smashed minorities who dared to run against him, even a beloved incumbant, and went on to run “for uplifting minorities”. He uses being a “poor black man” but was actually raised white in a well-to-do setting in Hawaii. He claims to be pro-American but attended a church where anti-americanism and racist anti-white sentiments WERE PART OF THE FAITH. An important little detail… He blatantly uses the drawl and persona of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his speeches, capitalizing on a great man whose sacrafices Obama isn't even remotely aquainted with.

He either is a very shrewd and cunning lone-wolf narcissist, or he is a person who really is conflicted about who he is, what his roots are and what he really stands for. And with this much internal conflict..what are we to expect when the doo-doo really hits the fan, the minute he presumably takes Office? Which ways will he waffle back and forth then?

It hasn't been said yet in so many words. I did say before that there are two sides to a racist coin. One is to beat down or suppress someone, in spite of their acheivements, because of the color of their skin; and the other to promote someone, in spite of their acheivements, because of the color of their skin. With Obama's track record, it's a good thing he has Kenyan DNA. If he was all white instead of just half white, with how lame he is and how many flaws he has as a potential candidate for president, we would've laughed him out of the running months ago.

Ah what a difference the color of the skin makes to racists. Because to promote Obama given his lack of qualification to be the next president, you must soley be going on race. And that is racist, pure and simple.

You've taken the focus off the man himself and instead put it on the color of his skin. Shame on you for promoting the backslide of racial equality based on merits..

Not at all. You just don't like the conclusions I reach based upon printed and published facts from reliable sources.

Here is the section on abortion.

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.

Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn't provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.

Strang: You’ve said you’re personally against abortion and would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions under your administration. So, as president, how would do you propose accomplishing that?

Obama: I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that’s something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think the proper role of government. So there are ways that we can make a difference, and those are going to be things I focus on when I am president.

Honestly? It's not clear in that what the heck Obama meant by “mental distress” and the questioner did not ask him to clarify. It does seem to be that he is saying that it should only be physical health. To ask him why this seeming contradiction has happened, to say “Senator Obama, you said this then but now you seem to be saying something different.” is fine. To just scream flip-flop and ask if he thinks you're stupid when you do seem to be justifying the accusation is something else entirely.

It is the printed mission of this chruch that condemns itself. Not me. I just provided a cut and paste of their church. They condemn themselves. I only have to ask you to read what THEY say. It was so bad that Barak Obama had to leave the Church in order to save his candidacy. Let us not Forget that Oprah Winfrey left the church too when all this came to light. A Woman I admire and greatly respect.

I made a point it was a church that was political and for the most part supported an America is evil mantra. I supplied not the insane ramblings of some partisan hack but their own website that concluded the same thing.

I am not sorry that you will scroll past my posts. The fact that you never have a rebuttal for pure facts only shows me the partisan that you are. Obama can do no wrong in your mind and I am out to destroy him.

Wrong. He is out to destroy himself because of what he has done in the last 20 years. I only point out facts and let you decide. You have decided to scroll past my posts because you cannot stand to see facts presented in clear and concise ways.

From Barak Obama's FORMER Church.

Deputy Voter Registrar Training Class
So that you can register citizens to vote in the City of Chicago and Cook County.

When I make the case that Barak Obama's church was politically active I am not lying. I put forth evidence to support my claims.

What is the evidence to claim that Obama's former church hates America? How many minutes out of 20 years worth of sermons and talks are being used to make that broad claim? Yes, Neocon, you have lots of problems when it comes to actually looking at the candidates and issues.

To be clear: The questions i pose are rhetorical and don;t require an answer.
In fact, I find your thinking so bizarre that I will be scrolling past your comments in the future. I don't intentionally waste my time.

Doesn't work anymore Runasim. People are getting wise to the far left who accuse themselves of something then blame it on the right. Those are your words. Not mine. I guess it is you who have problems and questions in this regard. Not me.

I guess that would be the Rev. Wright and copy and pasted from their own website:

The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology

What is the Black power and Black Theology?

Black Theology and Black Power. Based on the preeminence of “black experience,” Cone defines theology as “a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ.”[19] Cone's theology asks (and seeks to answer) the question, “What does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men whose existence is threatened daily by the insidious tentacles of white power?”

Doh what was I and about a billion other people thinking.

http://www.tucc.org/cis.htm

Are you for real? What woodwork would the author of such BS have sprung from.?

You forgot to mention that he is a Muslim, hates whitey, and eats children for breakfast. An did you metion that he is black?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

“

And now were questioning what he says and were deemed as idiots for not accepting the grand vision of Barak Obama and his nuances.

I stumbled upon a website that put forth a definition of the word Nuance as the left has come to use with Barak Obama to try to keep up with his ever changing positions.

# A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation.
# Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone: a rich artistic performance, full of nuance.
# Bullshit meant to explain Barak Obama’s ever changing policy positions.

The voices of the people are beginning to scare me, because every single topic is discussed in an upside down and extremely shallow fashion. Is this really how the president is going to be elected? Gawd!.

The most important thing about Iraq is that the candidates get it right, not how they said something or when they said it, but that they get it right.

Similarly, abortion is one of the most controversial and most difficult decisions a woman and her family may ever have to make. The important thing is that the policy is right, not when a candidate said it or how he said it or whether he used different words one day from the next.
We should talk about abortion, and what is the right policy, before we talk about politicans. and the words they used about it.

Late term abortions are different from early stage abortions, not only in law, but in essence, because the vialbility of the fetus comes into play. Who should make the decision is not disputed among pro-choicers, except for the gray area of mental health.
We should be discussing that, instead of playing 'gotcha' games. Then we can decide if Obama's policy stand is right.
Severe mental problems are different than feeling blue, or simply changing one's mind, just like a few days of the blues after giving birth do not necessarily develop into full blown post-partum depression, Complicating the matter is that a pregnant woman can't take all the medicines available, because of the effects on the fetus. So let's talk about that.
It appears that Obama is at least thinking about all these factors. Instead of pandering to any one group, perhaps he's listening to a number of of voices and learning. What a blot on his reputation that is, that he may actually listen as well as preach!
.
Once again, Obama gets it right. He is talking about it in depth, instead of the knee-jerk slogan and ideology driven language of the opinionators .

In fact, Obama is being exactly the kind of different politician he promissed to be, i.e. one that would be inclusive and listen to all voices. If some people now want to impose their own definition of 'different' on politics, it's a problem created by them, not Obama.. it's a very dangerous problem, to boot, becasue the result is that we're playing horse race games instead of discussing the issues so vital to the furure of this country. I DO NOT thank them for it.

The theme of this post is absolutely wrong.
Mavericks should not be mavericks just for the sake of being mavericks, and being different should not mean being different for the sake of being different. Pandering is not a synonym for listening.
What should matter is how thoughtul politicians are when arriving at policies and how they plan to implement those policies.

BTW, three cheers for flip-!flops. The worst thing any poltiician or leader could do is to stick to something just for the sake of sticking to it, even when he realizes he's been wrong.
I wish Bush had flip-flopped on his Iraq policy and fired Rumsfeld years beroe he did. I wish he had flip-flopped on his Axis of Evil rhetoric long before he knda sorta did.