What do you think about Obama's answer

[CircleDrill 178]

Ahhh....abortion. Everybody's favorite election-time litmus test issue.

[arnaldoabru 11]

That really isn't the issue at hand. The issue is ending a human life.

But it is "stopping" a human life

[TitanTiger 21,064]

But it is "stopping" a human life

...which might matter if that was something any of us was arguing against. Where has anyone said anything about preventing a human life from being created to begin with?

[au2004ece 30]

There are many on the pro-choice side who have no problem answering that the fetus has no rights at all and that abortion is simply a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. Obama apparently sees the issue as more complex than that and doesn't deny the moral dimension. Folks can disagree on his ultimate position to support Roe v. Wade, and vote accordingly.

Obama's replies were more thoughtful and conversational. McCain's were more like political soundbites. The same folks who admired Dubya's rhetorical style will like it.

Apparently Obama sees the issue as so complex that he cannot even articulate his position in a way that most people can understand what he believes. I know he is pro-choice, but he comes off as a teenager who is writing a paper on the issue and has never really thought about the issue. He simply states both sides of the argument and assumes that we will think he is so smart because he answers questions that can be answered in 3 words with answers that take 3 paragraphs.

Obama's replies definitely required more thought at the moment because he was trying to be as wishy-washy as possible so he would not alienate any possible voter. Why can't he say what he obviously believes? How could he support abortion if he thought it was even only possible that life began at conception.

The types of answer that Obama gave to this question is more important than even this issue. He is the prototypical moral relativist who believes that the correct moral answers to questions change depending on who is having the discussion. He is a wishy-washy man who seemingly believes in nothing enough to risk alienating anyone.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

There are many on the pro-choice side who have no problem answering that the fetus has no rights at all and that abortion is simply a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. Obama apparently sees the issue as more complex than that and doesn't deny the moral dimension. Folks can disagree on his ultimate position to support Roe v. Wade, and vote accordingly.

Obama's replies were more thoughtful and conversational. McCain's were more like political soundbites. The same folks who admired Dubya's rhetorical style will like it.

Apparently Obama sees the issue as so complex that he cannot even articulate his position in a way that most people can understand what he believes. I know he is pro-choice, but he comes off as a teenager who is writing a paper on the issue and has never really thought about the issue. He simply states both sides of the argument and assumes that we will think he is so smart because he answers questions that can be answered in 3 words with answers that take 3 paragraphs.

Obama's replies definitely required more thought at the moment because he was trying to be as wishy-washy as possible so he would not alienate any possible voter. Why can't he say what he obviously believes? How could he support abortion if he thought it was even only possible that life began at conception.

The types of answer that Obama gave to this question is more important than even this issue. He is the prototypical moral relativist who believes that the correct moral answers to questions change depending on who is having the discussion. He is a wishy-washy man who seemingly believes in nothing enough to risk alienating anyone.

That's drivel. He obviously knew he was alienating the folks in that room with his answer. You fault him because he can understand your position, even though he disagrees with it, yet you can't even begin to grasp his.

I understand and respect Titan's position on this issue, even though I don't share it.

Thoughtful candidates who can understand different sides of the same issue won't appeal to you. I think Obama accepts that and knows he won't get your vote. He knew he wouldn't get the vote of most people at that forum, but he showed up anyway.

[au2004ece 30]

There are many on the pro-choice side who have no problem answering that the fetus has no rights at all and that abortion is simply a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. Obama apparently sees the issue as more complex than that and doesn't deny the moral dimension. Folks can disagree on his ultimate position to support Roe v. Wade, and vote accordingly.

Obama's replies were more thoughtful and conversational. McCain's were more like political soundbites. The same folks who admired Dubya's rhetorical style will like it.

Apparently Obama sees the issue as so complex that he cannot even articulate his position in a way that most people can understand what he believes. I know he is pro-choice, but he comes off as a teenager who is writing a paper on the issue and has never really thought about the issue. He simply states both sides of the argument and assumes that we will think he is so smart because he answers questions that can be answered in 3 words with answers that take 3 paragraphs.

Obama's replies definitely required more thought at the moment because he was trying to be as wishy-washy as possible so he would not alienate any possible voter. Why can't he say what he obviously believes? How could he support abortion if he thought it was even only possible that life began at conception.

The types of answer that Obama gave to this question is more important than even this issue. He is the prototypical moral relativist who believes that the correct moral answers to questions change depending on who is having the discussion. He is a wishy-washy man who seemingly believes in nothing enough to risk alienating anyone.

That's drivel. He obviously knew he was alienating the folks in that room with his answer. You fault him because he can understand your position, even though he disagrees with it, yet you can't even begin to grasp his.

I understand and respect Titan's position on this issue, even though I don't share it.

Thoughtful candidates who can understand different sides of the same issue won't appeal to you. I think Obama accepts that and knows he won't get your vote. He knew he wouldn't get the vote of most people at that forum, but he showed up anyway.

He was trying not to alienate folks in that room and at the same time not alienate his core supporters. Maybe he knew his truthful answer to the question would alienate people in the room, but he did not provide that truthful answer. He sidestepped all around the issue in a way that, if the people in the room did not know he was pro-choice before the event, they would have not been able to come to a conclusion on whether he was pro-choice or pro-life. That is his problem, he needs to "be a man" and simply state his truthful position without worrying what others think.

I don't fault him for understanding my position. I fault him for being scared to articulate his own position. I grasp his position: he believes that life does not begin at conception and therefore does not believe abortion is murder.

Don't talk down to me about thoughtful folks not appealing to me. That's the problem with people like Obama, they believe they are being so thoughtful with their long drawn out answers while they are really being a wimp and not stating a simple answer to a simple question. I hope you don't truly believe you are better than others because you support this "exciting, new, and different" candidate.

He doesn't accept the fact that he won't get every vote. He seems to believe that if he changes his positions enough and sidesteps enough of the contentious issues where he can't play both sides he will be able to bring everybody into his group of supporters.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

There are many on the pro-choice side who have no problem answering that the fetus has no rights at all and that abortion is simply a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. Obama apparently sees the issue as more complex than that and doesn't deny the moral dimension. Folks can disagree on his ultimate position to support Roe v. Wade, and vote accordingly.

Obama's replies were more thoughtful and conversational. McCain's were more like political soundbites. The same folks who admired Dubya's rhetorical style will like it.

Apparently Obama sees the issue as so complex that he cannot even articulate his position in a way that most people can understand what he believes. I know he is pro-choice, but he comes off as a teenager who is writing a paper on the issue and has never really thought about the issue. He simply states both sides of the argument and assumes that we will think he is so smart because he answers questions that can be answered in 3 words with answers that take 3 paragraphs.

Obama's replies definitely required more thought at the moment because he was trying to be as wishy-washy as possible so he would not alienate any possible voter. Why can't he say what he obviously believes? How could he support abortion if he thought it was even only possible that life began at conception.

The types of answer that Obama gave to this question is more important than even this issue. He is the prototypical moral relativist who believes that the correct moral answers to questions change depending on who is having the discussion. He is a wishy-washy man who seemingly believes in nothing enough to risk alienating anyone.

That's drivel. He obviously knew he was alienating the folks in that room with his answer. You fault him because he can understand your position, even though he disagrees with it, yet you can't even begin to grasp his.

I understand and respect Titan's position on this issue, even though I don't share it.

Thoughtful candidates who can understand different sides of the same issue won't appeal to you. I think Obama accepts that and knows he won't get your vote. He knew he wouldn't get the vote of most people at that forum, but he showed up anyway.

He was trying not to alienate folks in that room and at the same time not alienate his core supporters. Maybe he knew his truthful answer to the question would alienate people in the room, but he did not provide that truthful answer. He sidestepped all around the issue in a way that, if the people in the room did not know he was pro-choice before the event, they would have not been able to come to a conclusion on whether he was pro-choice or pro-life. That is his problem, he needs to "be a man" and simply state his truthful position without worrying what others think.

I don't fault him for understanding my position. I fault him for being scared to articulate his own position. I grasp his position: he believes that life does not begin at conception and therefore does not believe abortion is murder.

Don't talk down to me about thoughtful folks not appealing to me. That's the problem with people like Obama, they believe they are being so thoughtful with their long drawn out answers while they are really being a wimp and not stating a simple answer to a simple question. I hope you don't truly believe you are better than others because you support this "exciting, new, and different" candidate.

He doesn't accept the fact that he won't get every vote. He seems to believe that if he changes his positions enough and sidesteps enough of the contentious issues where he can't play both sides he will be able to bring everybody into his group of supporters.

More drivel. More mindless, senseless drivel. Sorry if the truth hurts, but you say you respect folks who don't beat around the bush and say what they think. ("he needs to "be a man" and simply state his truthful position without worrying what others think.") You talk in stereotyped sound bites you hear from others. There's no real arguing with that because there is no real thought behind it.

[au2004ece 30]

More drivel. More mindless, senseless drivel. Sorry if the truth hurts, but you say you respect folks who don't beat around the bush and say what they think. ("he needs to "be a man" and simply state his truthful position without worrying what others think.") You talk in stereotyped sound bites you hear from others. There's no real arguing with that because there is no real thought behind it.

OK, whatever. Why do you turn a thread about political candidates into a personal problem between you and me and make yourself look silly? You should stick to the issues instead of speaking down to others on here. Speaking down to others does your side no good, especially when the leading narcicist is at the head of your movement. And yes, Obama's political correctedness at the expense of honesty is an issue for me.

Obama doesn't truly believe in anything but himself. If you can't see this, then you are the blind one. I articulated my opinion very well in previous posts and you can't argue against it except to say that it is mindless drivel. Why don't you think some more and come back with an intelligent response? Oh wait, what I said was obvious and can't be argued against (according to you).

What stereotype would my opinion be based on? You are the one that just put no thought into your post and it was a waste of space. If what I typed is truly a bunch of "drivel" then everyone will recognize it as so and your Obama-defense induced personal tirade would not be needed anyway.

You really should get off of your high-horse. I know it can be very exciting to support the politically correct candidate that never does anything that could offend anyone, but wouldn't you like it better if the candidate you supported actually advocated the positions that I assume you support instead of hiding behind grandiose language that masks the issues and the truth about what kind of results policies like his have achieved before?

Let me guess, this was most drivelly and Obama is going to get me because I am a mean stereotyping non-thinker.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

More drivel. More mindless, senseless drivel. Sorry if the truth hurts, but you say you respect folks who don't beat around the bush and say what they think. ("he needs to "be a man" and simply state his truthful position without worrying what others think.") You talk in stereotyped sound bites you hear from others. There's no real arguing with that because there is no real thought behind it.

OK, whatever. Why do you turn a thread about political candidates into a personal problem between you and me and make yourself look silly? You should stick to the issues instead of speaking down to others on here. Speaking down to others does your side no good, especially when the leading narcicist is at the head of your movement. And yes, Obama's political correctedness at the expense of honesty is an issue for me.

Obama doesn't truly believe in anything but himself. If you can't see this, then you are the blind one. I articulated my opinion very well in previous posts and you can't argue against it except to say that it is mindless drivel. Why don't you think some more and come back with an intelligent response? Oh wait, what I said was obvious and can't be argued against (according to you).

What stereotype would my opinion be based on? You are the one that just put no thought into your post and it was a waste of space. If what I typed is truly a bunch of "drivel" then everyone will recognize it as so and your Obama-defense induced personal tirade would not be needed anyway.

You really should get off of your high-horse. I know it can be very exciting to support the politically correct candidate that never does anything that could offend anyone, but wouldn't you like it better if the candidate you supported actually advocated the positions that I assume you support instead of hiding behind grandiose language that masks the issues and the truth about what kind of results policies like his have achieved before?

Let me guess, this was most drivelly and Obama is going to get me because I am a mean stereotyping non-thinker.

Intelligent response to this?-- "Obama doesn't truly believe in anything but himself. If you can't see this, then you are the blind one."

I think I've given an intelligent response to your blah, blah, blah.

Another substance free rant, and yet you want such drivel to be treated with great respect.

[au2004ece 30]

More drivel. More mindless, senseless drivel. Sorry if the truth hurts, but you say you respect folks who don't beat around the bush and say what they think. ("he needs to "be a man" and simply state his truthful position without worrying what others think.") You talk in stereotyped sound bites you hear from others. There's no real arguing with that because there is no real thought behind it.

OK, whatever. Why do you turn a thread about political candidates into a personal problem between you and me and make yourself look silly? You should stick to the issues instead of speaking down to others on here. Speaking down to others does your side no good, especially when the leading narcicist is at the head of your movement. And yes, Obama's political correctedness at the expense of honesty is an issue for me.

Obama doesn't truly believe in anything but himself. If you can't see this, then you are the blind one. I articulated my opinion very well in previous posts and you can't argue against it except to say that it is mindless drivel. Why don't you think some more and come back with an intelligent response? Oh wait, what I said was obvious and can't be argued against (according to you).

What stereotype would my opinion be based on? You are the one that just put no thought into your post and it was a waste of space. If what I typed is truly a bunch of "drivel" then everyone will recognize it as so and your Obama-defense induced personal tirade would not be needed anyway.

You really should get off of your high-horse. I know it can be very exciting to support the politically correct candidate that never does anything that could offend anyone, but wouldn't you like it better if the candidate you supported actually advocated the positions that I assume you support instead of hiding behind grandiose language that masks the issues and the truth about what kind of results policies like his have achieved before?

Let me guess, this was most drivelly and Obama is going to get me because I am a mean stereotyping non-thinker.

Another substance free rant, and yet you want such drivel to be treated with great respect.

Again, you can't argue with anything I have said. Go ask Obama for some help, I'm sure he could come up with a much longer post than yours that doesn't argue with anything I said either.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

[

Again, you can't argue with anything I have said.

You're right. No one can argue with substance-free crap. At least you recognize that now.

[au2004ece 30]

[

Again, you can't argue with anything I have said.

You're right. No one can argue with substance-free crap. At least you recognize that now.

Why do you feel the need to continue to refute my "substance-free crap" with your posts that actual do have no substance? If it is really substance free, then let it ride, why add more substance free name calling? Or are you scared more people will come to the same realization about Obama that I have and you want to denegrate that type of opinion as quickly as possible. Why are you so defensive of Obama? Do you not think he is man-enough to take care of himself?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

[

Again, you can't argue with anything I have said.

You're right. No one can argue with substance-free crap. At least you recognize that now.

Why do you feel the need to continue to refute my "substance-free crap" with your posts that actual do have no substance? If it is really substance free, then let it ride, why add more substance free name calling? Or are you scared more people will come to the same realization about Obama that I have and you want to denegrate that type of opinion as quickly as possible. Why are you so defensive of Obama? Do you not think he is man-enough to take care of himself?

This is a political forum. I don't know how many minds are truly changed here, but if you want to convince people to view Obama as you do, then make more concrete arguments that support your conclusions. I frankly don't care whom you convince of anything.

But if this is your most persuasive argument to the persuadable:

Obama doesn't truly believe in anything but himself. If you can't see this, then you are the blind one.

...you're in trouble.

Obama talked about raising taxes in that forum. That alienates some folks. He did not take the anti-abortion position folks there wanted him to take. That alienates folks. You make the assertion that he didn't want to say anything that might alienate folks. I point out factual, concrete examples that refute your argument. You counter with more substance-free crap and then whine when I call you on it. I refuted your main point several posts ago.

[au2004ece 30]

This is a political forum. I don't know how many minds are truly changed here, but if you want to convince people to view Obama as you do, then make more concrete arguments that support your conclusions. I frankly don't care whom you convince of anything.

But if this is your most persuasive argument to the persuadable:

Obama doesn't truly believe in anything but himself. If you can't see this, then you are the blind one.

...you're in trouble.

Obama talked about raising taxes in that forum. That alienates some folks. He did not take the anti-abortion position folks there wanted him to take. That alienates folks. You make the assertion that he didn't want to say anything that might alienate folks. I point out factual, concrete examples that refute your argument. You counter with more substance-free crap and then whine when I call you on it. I refuted your main point several posts ago.

That's not the "most persuasive argument". I stated my arguments for why Obama's answer to the "when does life begin" question shows a character flaw that currently exists in Obama. That comment you quoted in the post above was a statement of opinion that I felt was in line with you calling me a driveller.

Obama did not voluntarily take any position on the abortion issue. This is what I am faulting him for. He only spoke of his "pro-choiceness" after the pastor brought up his past votes on the abortion issue. He tried to play both sides in his voluntary answer to the question about when life begins.

You have not providing any facts to refute the last 4 sentences before this sentence. As far as me whining, I think it adds nothing to the discussion to call the opinions of others drivel. You never responded to my post with even an attempt to refute what I said. Look back at this thread. None of your responses to me include any refutation, except the drivel word.

I'll add that I do hope that Obama will realize this character flaw and change, because I still believe he has a better chance to win this election. If he removed this character flaw, he would be a better president, if elected.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

This is a political forum. I don't know how many minds are truly changed here, but if you want to convince people to view Obama as you do, then make more concrete arguments that support your conclusions. I frankly don't care whom you convince of anything.

But if this is your most persuasive argument to the persuadable:

Obama doesn't truly believe in anything but himself. If you can't see this, then you are the blind one.

...you're in trouble.

Obama talked about raising taxes in that forum. That alienates some folks. He did not take the anti-abortion position folks there wanted him to take. That alienates folks. You make the assertion that he didn't want to say anything that might alienate folks. I point out factual, concrete examples that refute your argument. You counter with more substance-free crap and then whine when I call you on it. I refuted your main point several posts ago.

That's not the "most persuasive argument". I stated my arguments for why Obama's answer to the "when does life begin" question shows a character flaw that currently exists in Obama. That comment you quoted in the post above was a statement of opinion that I felt was in line with you calling me a driveller.

Obama did not voluntarily take any position on the abortion issue. This is what I am faulting him for. He only spoke of his "pro-choiceness" after the pastor brought up his past votes on the abortion issue. He tried to play both sides in his voluntary answer to the question about when life begins.

You have not providing any facts to refute the last 4 sentences before this sentence. As far as me whining, I think it adds nothing to the discussion to call the opinions of others drivel. You never responded to my post with even an attempt to refute what I said. Look back at this thread. None of your responses to me include any refutation, except the drivel word.

I'll add that I do hope that Obama will realize this character flaw and change, because I still believe he has a better chance to win this election. If he removed this character flaw, he would be a better president, if elected.

You said this:

He is a wishy-washy man who seemingly believes in nothing enough to risk alienating anyone.

I replied with this:

That's drivel. He obviously knew he was alienating the folks in that room with his answer.

You fail to recognize your character flaw of falsely accusing him. If you removed this character flaw, you would be a better poster.

[Tiger Al 0]

Obama did not voluntarily take any position on the abortion issue.

He sidestepped all around the issue in a way that, if the people in the room did not know he was pro-choice before the event, they would have not been able to come to a conclusion on whether he was pro-choice or pro-life. That is his problem, he needs to "be a man" and simply state his truthful position without worrying what others think.

But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually.

How can his position on abortion be any less clear? As I said of you in another thread, you're willfully ignorant. This forum wasn't some impromptu town hall meeting held in a mall. The people came there to hear political candidates express their views and I'd be willing to bet that abortion is one of the top three issues every single person there held. And it was televised to millions. Do you ever think about what you type?

Hate Obama if you like, but, good God man, hate him for the right reasons.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

I think this guy at The Atlantic pinpoints the problem with Obama's answer:

Warren, to his credit, didn’t pose a metaphysical question, or a biological one. He asked a legal question: “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama tried to dodge by saying that from a “theological perspective” or a “scientific perspective” the issue is “above his pay grade.” But Warren asked a more narrow question, and one that any politician who votes on abortion laws should be able to answer. And of course, as a supporter of Roe and Casey, Obama does have an answer: He thinks that a baby acquires rights when it’s born - well, perhaps depending on how and why it happens to be born - and lacks them at every juncture before birth. He just didn’t want to come out and say it.

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archive...s_pay_grade.php

[Tiger Al 0]

I think this guy at The Atlantic pinpoints the problem with Obama's answer:

Warren, to his credit, didn’t pose a metaphysical question, or a biological one. He asked a legal question: “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama tried to dodge by saying that from a “theological perspective” or a “scientific perspective” the issue is “above his pay grade.” But Warren asked a more narrow question, and one that any politician who votes on abortion laws should be able to answer. And of course, as a supporter of Roe and Casey, Obama does have an answer: He thinks that a baby acquires rights when it’s born - well, perhaps depending on how and why it happens to be born - and lacks them at every juncture before birth. He just didn’t want to come out and say it.

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archive...s_pay_grade.php

So, should we be issuing life insurance policies to a five week old fetus in utero? Using this guy's argument, we should. Using his argument, a pregnant illegal alien already possesses an anchor baby. I didn't take Warren's question as one of when are the legal rights of a person realized and/or recognized and I don't think he meant it that way. Neither did McCain.

[au2004ece 30]

You said this:

He is a wishy-washy man who seemingly believes in nothing enough to risk alienating anyone.

I replied with this:

That's drivel. He obviously knew he was alienating the folks in that room with his answer.

You fail to recognize your character flaw of falsely accusing him. If you removed this character flaw, you would be a better poster.

He failed to answer the actual question about "when does life begin?". He never stated his beliefs on the actual question asked. I believe he skipped answering this question because he is scared of alienating voters. You disagree, I get it. But, you saying that "he obviously knew he was alienating the folks in that room with his answer" does not make it a concrete fact. He never answered the question, so he couldn't have been alienating anybody with an answer that never materialized.

[Tiger Al 0]

You said this:

He is a wishy-washy man who seemingly believes in nothing enough to risk alienating anyone.

I replied with this:

That's drivel. He obviously knew he was alienating the folks in that room with his answer.

You fail to recognize your character flaw of falsely accusing him. If you removed this character flaw, you would be a better poster.

He failed to answer the actual question about "when does life begin?". He never stated his beliefs on the actual question asked. I believe he skipped answering this question because he is scared of alienating voters. You disagree, I get it. But, you saying that "he obviously knew he was alienating the folks in that room with his answer" does not make it a concrete fact. He never answered the question, so he couldn't have been alienating anybody with an answer that never materialized.

But, he did answer it. He said it was above his pay grade which means it's not his decision to make. It's a poor word choice as it may not be familiar to most viewers. But, those familiar with it know exactly what it means.

More of his answer:

From the perspective of those who are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate, and I respect their views. One of the things that I’ve always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then — and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you.

He's said on several other occasions that he doesn't know ABSOLUTELY when life begins. That's a position that, if people were completely honest, most all of us would take.

But, the question Warren asked wasn't "when does life begin," it was, "at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"

[BamaGrad03 0]

So, should we be issuing life insurance policies to a five week old fetus in utero?

If a pregnant woman is stabbed in the stomach and both she and her baby die, Obama thinks the attacker should be penalized with 2 life sentences.

How can he hold that position and still not be able to answer a simple question about when the babies rights begin?

How can you push for 2 life sentences, yet it's OK to DELIVER a viable baby and still suck it's brains out?

[Tiger Al 0]

So, should we be issuing life insurance policies to a five week old fetus in utero?

If a pregnant woman is stabbed in the stomach and both she and her baby die, Obama thinks the attacker should be penalized with 2 life sentences.

How can he hold that position and still not be able to answer a simple question about when the babies rights begin?

How can you push for 2 life sentences, yet it's OK to DELIVER a viable baby and still suck it's brains out?

If you're talking about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, I don't think Obama was in the US Senate in March of 2004 when it was voted on, so, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that he thinks the attacker should or shouldn't be penalized. It was already a law in Illinois since 1993.

So, how about the Mexican illegal? Her embryo would qualify as an American citizen, yes or no?

[BamaGrad03 0]

So, how about the Mexican illegal? Her embryo would qualify as an American citizen, yes or no?

I'd say if we are giving unborn babies rights, then we have to extend those rights to illegals as well.

[au2004ece 30]

These are the same points (written better than I wrote them) I was trying to make a few days ago earlier in this thread:

"Alas, the more he tries to explain his position, the more muddled the picture becomes and the more confused voters are. The most revealing answer may have come when pastor Rick Warren asked the Illinois senator when a baby gets human rights.

"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade."

Well, uh, not really.

Yes, Warren's question was complicated, especially if you're a politician afraid of saying the wrong thing. But the answer is really pretty simple. It's whatever one thinks. It is not above anyone's pay grade to be honest.

Instead, Obama punted.

Americans are accustomed to differing views on abortion and will tolerate a flip-flop now and then. But a politician who finesses or fudges out of an instinct to please will be viewed as either spineless or insecure or both -- none of which inspires confidence.

The result of such exquisite ambivalence isn't a higher level of discourse, but a lower level of trust, as recent surveys reflect."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ve_problem.html

"The Rick Warren debate mattered. Why? It took place at exactly the moment America was starting to pay attention. This is what it looked like by the end of the night: Mr. McCain, normal. Mr. Obama, not normal. You've seen this discussed elsewhere. Mr. McCain was direct and clear, Mr. Obama both more careful and more scattered. But on abortion in particular, Mr. McCain seemed old-time conservative, which is something we all understand, whether we like such a stance or not, and Mr. Obama seemed either radical or dodgy. He wouldn't vote to ban partial-birth abortions because we must contemplate a rigorous legal parsing of any and all possible implications regarding emanations and of the viability of Roe v. Wade?

As I watched I thought: How about "Let the baby live"? Don't parse it. Just "Let the baby live."

As to the question when human life begins, the answer to which is above Mr. Obama's pay grade, let's go on a little tear. You know why they call it birth control? Because it's meant to stop a birth from happening nine months later. We know when life begins. Everyone who ever bought a pack of condom knows when life begins.

To put it another way, with conception something begins. What do you think it is? A car? A 1948 Buick?

If you want to argue whether legal abortion is morally defensible, have at it and go to it, but Mr. Obama's answers here seemed to me strange and disturbing."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219354810...days_columnists