The only thing I can remember that he's said during this last month that's been a positive improvement is his opposition to a ban on gay marriage.

Or he will explain the "nuanced" difference of "distress".

Barry is not the nominee until the convention. Hillary can still be nominated. With all of his flip flops towards the center it is time for the supers to switch to Hillary !

Denver !

Seriously, he has been so tone-deaf on anything to do with women, from the beginning, that this does not surprise me.  He doesn't even know what he's saying to or about women.  He really doesn't.

But tacking is one thing. Lunging is another.

I'm trying not to worry now, mostly by imagining how shocked his worshipers must be watching their hero turn into Bill Clinton on meth.

all his triangulating ain't winning him any supporters, but is probably make a lot of people wonder why they were so enthusiastic about him before.

He's going to play doctor now, too?

I don't know what has happened to people I know who have chosen to support Obama. In the instance above, in my own reply at Table Talk I referenced this thread at TalkLeft and NARAL's statement about the sort of mental distress we are talking about here. I also made it clear that I felt that Republican anti-choice memes were being embraced in order to defend Obama here.

When is enough enough?

In an unrelated post on the Hillary Clinton thread on Table Talk, I've begun the process of fleshing out my opposition to Obama and why I am not fearful of an opposition party president if we have a strongly Democratic congress. The process is not complete and some who have replied do not as yet fully grasp the point. But I am beginning the believe firmly that liberals/progressives have much less to fear from a divided government in the next four years than they would from an Obama-led Democratic government. Is that blasphemy from a liberal? Well, I guess that must make me a blasphemer.

The day that liberals begin throwing around labels like "baby killer" and charging that women in need of late-term abortion are seeking "murder on a whim" is the day I have well and truly been left in an utter state of confusion. No facts will get in the way of these people. It calls to mind Thomas Jefferson:

"In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal."

And I suppose he will deliver another lecture/"speech", followed by a statement about how pained he is over the whole issue, and how, really, no one understands more than he does what the wrenching moral choices are.

Look, it's simple: he either supports choice or he doesn't.  He either accepts that reproductive choices are a woman's to make with as much or as little help as she herself feels she needs, or he doesn't.

But it won't kill you, sayeth Obama, therefore it ain't a threat to your health.
The Roe v. Wade argument is now under the bus.
Mental health no longer counts as a serious illness according to Obama...
... women should counsel their ministers before seeking an abortion
he was writing off Clinton's women and women in general

But I live in America, where gays are oppressed, Hispanic immigrants are scapegoated, blacks are unfairly treated in the justice system, and many, many people thing someone like McCain could actually keep us safe and fix the economy.

At least McCain says he wouldn't have a litmus test, and for some reason, I believe him...

June 10, 2008
Pro-Choice Democrats and John McCain
By Froma Harrop

Hillary Clinton's blessing notwithstanding, many of the New York senator's supporters will resist the handover to Barack Obama. The sexism that permeated the recent campaign still rankles, and John McCain is far from the standard-issue Republican they instinctively vote against.

A big sticking point for wavering Democrats will be McCain's position on reproductive rights. Clinton's backers are overwhelmingly pro-choice, and they'll want to know this: Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade? The 1973 decision guarantees a right to abortion.

The answer is unclear but probably "no." While McCain has positioned himself as "pro-life" during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue.

As for me, I'm done.  He'll probably get my vote, because I can't not vote and I could never vote McCain, but any time or money I had thought of giving is gone.

I don't understand why you would pander to people who might vote for you in small numbers and risk losing the votes of women, the largest voting bloc in the country, who will vote for you.

This is an excellent read;
And Another Thing