I have decided that Illinois PP are telling a fairy tale, not because I "know Obama is anti-choice," but because the strategy they allege simply makes no sense.  It's like Obama's claim that he voted against a 30% cap on credit card interest rates, thus leaving no cap at all in place, because he thought the cap ought to be lower.  You can tell any old story about why you voted a certain way.  I'm not required to believe it if it's totally implausible.

What I see from Obama is not so much an unacceptable amount of centrism so much as a serious lack of political courage, the kind of thing that has increasingly grown to characterize the Democratic Party as a whole in recent years.  "Present" votes on thorny abortion bills are an example.  Skipping the MoveOn/Betrayus vote was another (and another case where I'm not required to buy the silly cover story).  Refusing to be photographed with Gavin Newsom in an election year is another.

And of course, pointing to the fact that even an NRA member might want to keep guns out of the hands of a psychotic mass murderer is hardly relevant to this discussion. The issue is whether the level of restrictions on guns that Obama says he supports is at anything near a 90% level. I really cant beleive that you beleive that.

Do you agree that there is an individual right to bear arms? If not, you disagree with Obama. Does that make you an extremist? Careful, I betcha that the majority of people 'round here reject the individual right.
If you do agree there is such a right, then you agree with Obama, and disagree with tens of millions of Americans.

Do you support the type of gun control that Obama is on record supporting? If so, then you are disagreeing with tens of millions of Americans.

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."