From "Nuanced" to Principled: The Lessons of Pastor Rick, and Why and How Obama and the Democrats Should Make Abortion a Voting Issue

For years Democratic candidates have struggled with how to counter Republican stands that paint the world in black and white, readily summarized in brief, evocative phrases (e.g., "life begins at conception," "tax and spend," "cut and run"). A prime example is abortion, which has left Democrats outside the Northeast and Northwest (where candidates can safely proclaim, "I'm pro-choice" and live to talk about it) and national candidates tongue-tied for years.

Barack Obama faced this problem Saturday night at Rick Warren's "Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency." When asked when he believes life begins, he led with a wonderfully disarming comment about the answer to that question being "above my pay grade." But he then proceeded to offer a somewhat rambling, discursive response that I can't readily summarize after having just read the transcript three times. The main thing I remember is that he said he believes in a woman's right to choose and Roe v. Wade. Commentators referred to his response, like many of his responses Saturday night, as "nuanced," a politic way of saying that it showed greater complexity than his Republican opponent's answer but had the usual ring of a Democratic presidential candidate's response to a question about an emotionally charged issue: too intellectual and difficult to grasp its essence.

When asked the same question, John McCain knew what his task was: to convince the far right, and particularly Christian conservatives, that he is one of them. So his answer was crisp and unequivocal: "At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress and in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment."

So is the problem, as many apologists on the left would suggest, that progressive positions are just more complex and not easily reduced to sound bites? Yes and no. Sure, it's easier to summarize a Manichean world view than one that posits more than two forces in the world (good and evil) and more than two options in every situation (pro-life vs. pro-death, staying the course vs. surrender, free markets vs. communism). But the problem is not that our ideas are too sophisticated. It's that the way we present those ideas is not sophisticated enough.

Most Americans actually disagree with John McCain on abortion, as they do on most of the issues that separate him and his Democratic rival. Polls show that only 30% of Americans believe all abortions should be illegal, and few support a return to the pre-Roe era. The majority -- including the majority of evangelical Christians, who made up Warren's audience -- think we should find some kind of "middle ground" on abortion. The reason is that most Americans are ambivalent about abortion. Virtually no one -- left, right, or center -- is comfortable with late term abortions except when the mother's life or health is in danger. The idea of aborting an 8-month-old fetus for convenience (something no one would really do, but it makes a great bogey man to push Democrats down slippery slopes) is deeply disturbing to the vast majority of Americans in a way that aborting a 10-week-old fetus is not.

Why? Because the concept of life is what cognitive psychologists call a "fuzzy set" -- a concept that doesn't have clear boundaries. Unconsciously, most people view a newly fertilized embryo as qualitatively different from a late-term fetus because it doesn't seem like a person. But the point at which a fetus seems to us more like a person than not is indeterminate.

Regardless of their conscious beliefs -- that life begins at conception or that life begins when a baby takes its first breath -- most people's feelings follow their unconscious perceptions. That's why early in pregnancy even most evangelical Christians find it morally repugnant to force a rape victim to bear her rapist's child, even though they may consciously believe that the fertilized egg is a life, whereas late in pregnancy most people aren't comfortable with abortion except in exceptional circumstances. In their guts, most people feel that Roe v. Wade got it about as right as we're going to get it -- which is why the vast majority of Americans don't want it overturned -- even if they can't articulate why.

The million dollar question is how to talk about an issue that requires nuance in a way that is succinct, principled, and captures our gut-level sensibilities. If Democrats continue to parry Republican war cries of "baby killer" with emotionally bland or euphemistic phrases like "reproductive health" or continue to couch the debate in terms of life vs. choice, offering ambivalent voters a Hobson's choice, they do indeed have something to worry about.

But that isn't how Democrats should talk about abortion. The pollster Stan Greenberg and I recently completed the first draft of one of the most wide-ranging progressive messaging projects of which I am aware, using a sample of 10,000 to study 10 different ways of talking about 9 issues, from wedge issues (e.g., abortion, guns, gays, immigration) to national security and taxes (where Democrats have traditionally similarly been on the run) to the economy (where Democrats hold an advantage). We found that progressives can win the abortion debate by 15 to 20 points seven different ways against a strong "pro-life" message much like the one McCain offered Saturday night, and they can win in some very unlikely parts of the country. When progressives speak honestly to voters' ambivalence and make their principles clear and emotionally compelling, Americans tend to prefer honesty and nuance to oversimplification. The answer doesn't lie in "dumbing down" our messages. It lies in ratcheting up their emotional intelligence. On some issues it took us several tries in focus groups and online dial-tests to find the words that conveyed what we were trying to express without triggering some other meaning we hadn't intended, but by the time we had completed the latest round of testing, we had multiple messages that beat well-branded conservative messages by 8 to 30 points on every issue.

The language of "choice" is not, in fact, the most compelling way to engage most Americans on abortion. It doesn't resonate with most voters in the center, and it activates negative stereotypes about feminism and promiscuity (and, not surprisingly, it polls particularly poorly with men, who have conflicting feelings about both). It was the right language in the 1960s, when women's right to control their own bodies was emblematic of their struggle for equality, but that was 40 years ago, and as meanings change, so should messages. It is a particularly weak appeal to an evangelical Christian audience, for whom it begs the question, "Whose choice matters most, God's or a (mortal) woman's?"

Obama wasn't going to win over the majority of Warren's parishioners, but he could have spoken to them in their own language while winning the hearts and minds of the majority who were listening on television. He might have begun by acknowledging the obvious, that he knew he wasn't going to convince most of Pastor Rick's flock, but that he was nonetheless one of them, with a comment like, "Well, I knew at some point I was going to be in there with the lions. I know many of you won't agree with me, but I hope my answer at least leaves you with as much respect for me and my beliefs as I have for you and yours." He could then have continued, once again drawing them in while addressing concerns about him that had been raised in recent weeks, "The Bible says that pride is a sin, and I'd be showing more pride than even John McCain thinks I have, with those celebrity and Moses ads, if I told you that I know with certainty when life begins. I wish I did, because then this would be an easy question. But here's where I stand":

No one truly knows what's in the mind of God, and I just don't like the idea of government telling a woman or couple when they should or shouldn't start their family based on somebody else's interpretation of Scripture. We need to find the common ground on abortion, reflecting our shared moral beliefs, not the beliefs that divide us. We are all united in the belief that we should do everything we can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, and abortions, starting with instilling in our children both the values and the knowledge to make good choices. And we all agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control and shouldn't be an option late in pregnancy except when the mother's life or health is in danger. I could go on and talk about how misguided I think our currently policies are that deny access to birth control to women and teenagers in our inner cities, which does nothing but perpetuate the cycle of poverty, stop young people from getting an education and fulfilling their God-given potential, and make it more likely that they'll have children before they're ready to be good parents. But the main point I want to make is that in this country, we don't force one person to live by another person's faith. This should be a personal and moral issue, not a political one.

This is a variation of one of the messages we tested, although it is considerably longer than those messages, which we kept to about 45 seconds. I revised it here to fit both the audience and the central narrative of Obama's campaign (the theme of focusing on what unites and not what divides us).

I'm not claiming that this is the best or only narrative Obama could have offered on abortion. Central to Obama's appeal is his genuineness, and the only messages he should offer voters are those that fit his values and style. But this way of talking about abortion has several features that render it a strong, principled message. It isn't hard to come away with the central theme, because it's offered in both the opening sentence and at the end: That as long as we do not all share the same religious beliefs, the government has no business forcing one person to live by another person's faith. It speaks to religious freedom and government intrusion, two themes usually associated with narratives on the right but that should be central to a progressive narrative on abortion. It recognizes, as Obama did in his actual answer, that this is a moral issue, and it builds on common ground, emphasizing themes like reducing teen pregnancies and instilling values that are shared by both the left and right and hence are likely to be compelling to people in the center. And it re-enfranchises males by reminding men that they have a stake in this, too: that although ultimately the decision to abort or not to abort resides with the mother, women usually make these decisions together with their husbands or boyfriends, and that a woman or couple, not the government, should make these kinds of intensely personal decisions.

I would be remiss not to conclude with one final thought. The impact of a message doesn't reside solely in the words, metaphors, imagery, frames, or neural networks it triggers or fails to trigger. The messenger, the delivery, and the nonverbal communication are equally important. This year Democrats have chosen a messenger who is a tremendously gifted orator. But Obama has not been able to translate what he can do on the stump to debates or interviews. In contrast to McCain, who had clearly been coached to speak to his audience, to use personal examples, and to stay focused throughout on his primary goal--to convince doubters on the right that he is one of them -- Obama too rarely spoke to his audience, too rarely connected with personal stories, and did not seem to have come into the evening with a game plan of what he wanted to accomplish.

None of that should have happened after over 20 debates and hundreds of television appearances, and none of it would have happened after the second or third Democratic debate if Democrats understood the importance of narratives and nonverbal cues. Republican presidential candidates have outperformed their Democratic counterparts for most of the last 40 years in message, and they have outperformed them in delivery. The reason is simple: They have understood the value of both. Whether or not McCain had a little help outside the cone of silence Saturday night when he sauntered into the church in time to have heard half the questions, there is no question that he had the benefit of superb coaching on both his verbal and nonverbal messages. The Obama team needs to take the cue. If someone with the appropriate expertise hasn't spent a few days with Obama watching the tapes of his prior debate performances and giving him feedback on what voters are picking up between his words, there's no better way he could spend the week of the Republican Convention.

Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," recently released in paperback with a new postscript on the 2008 election.

Comments

[doctor4kids]

The "Right to Lifers" have been trying to repeal Roe v. Wade for over thirty years. I don't think they really want to do it. The Republicans keep this issue going to keep the Evangelicals voting for them. If they really wanted to reduce abortions, they would improve access to contraception and sex education (beyond "abstinence only"). They would also make it easier for single mothers to improve their lots in life. We should also promote the option of adoption.

[truesoccermom]

Most people don't realize that overruling Roe does not make abortion illegal -- it merely makes it not constitutionally protected and thus the states can make it illegal if they want. So, even if Roe is overturned, most states will not make abortion illegal (CA, NY, NJ etc..) and people will be able to go to neighboring states (if they need to) to get abortions. I almost wish Roe would be overruled so we can take the issue of abortion out of Presidential and federal politics.

[PghDemocrat]

Truesoccermom is correct and JM backed this by saying he was a Federalist to support why he wanted to repeal RvsW. As a Federalist he wants the rights of states to create law to take precident and each state could function as its people permit. His comment about being a Federalist should be taken seriously and reviewed. Most Americans no longer really understand the term.

[GTRich2004]

bingo!!

[slaxx]

i'd like to agree with you, but then it would just move the issue back to the states and the issue would again be fought there. and eventually i think it would work its way back up to the federal level, the supreme court, as with roe, and the whole cycle would go all over again.

plus you know the pro-lifers would never give up, would fight for laws that make it impossible to cross state lines to get an abortion, stop funding for abortions, etc. they're already going after birth control. we need a seismic shift in this country. i don't wish roe would be overruled, i wish that the right would just go away and let us decide what to do with our bodies and private lives.

[zizyphus]

Huffpo has censored most of my comments about abortion. I am adamantly pro-choice. I know how excruciating abortions are, and wish no one ever had to undergo one. I wish that we had a sustainable society where every child was wanted and loved, and had a viable future. I wish that the earth had enough resources to support the over-population that is desecrating our planet. As amazing as our species is, we are like a petri dish on earth. As we overpopulate it, and foul our nest, we are destroying the chance our descendants may have had for a good life. Population control is the one thing that can have an effect on this outcome. People should voluntarily limit their families.

[KyotoProto]

Amen to you Ziz! I tried to respond to Kelley's article on immigration, and got dumped. Some reference to the browning of the southwestern petri dish must have piqued someone. Overpopulation is the human big bang, and nobody will realistically talk about it. Grow becomes an anathema, but all of our business models for capitalization require these endless growth pyramids to succeed, and when the finite limits of the petri dish are hit it collapses and feeds off of itself; Disaster Capitalism: Hedge Funds.

Peak Greed and Need meet at the top of the dish and slowly settle...pushing the less fortunates at the bottom over the sides eventually, cascading into darwinian social oblivion.

[mattheweste]

Hm. Interesting; your profile doesn't mention any deleted comments. They've deleted a number of my abortion comments (I am pro-choice). Perhaps the deleted count is only visible to the account holder?

[peleg]

A niece was pregnant, she found out after ultrasound that while the baby would be able to be carried to term to term, that it would be born functionally brain dead. She chose abortion. Now was she right or wrong? A neighbor in the 1960's had a tubal pregnancy, her religion would not allow the treatment to terminate the pregnancy and she nearly bled to death when the whole thing ruptured. Now was she right or wrong in her choice? These women both did what they thought was the best for their situation. Anyone out there that will take a side on this? Anyone want to take the responsibility for these women in their time of crisis? Much easier to generalize on what the maker would say or to go to the book of your religion to get a basis to condemn others. Whats wrong with leaving this whole decision process between a woman and her doctor?

[gotborked]

I don't know what your neighbor's religion was, but there are procedures for a tubal pregnancy that can and often do result in the death of the fetus that are not inconsistent with at least Catholic teaching. Much of it turns on the primary intent behind seeking the procedure. This can be nuanced, for sure. In extreme cases like this that actually do border on the line between what is "morally acceptable" or not, nuance has a place.

[slaxx]

"Whats wrong with leaving this whole decision process between a woman and her doctor?"

women are stupid, selfish, and immoral and so they can't make decisions on their own, especially important decisions such as these. they need daddy to dictate what they can and can't do with their bodies and lives.

(i hope you know i'm being sarcastic)

[gotborked]

It seems like this new position that some want Obama to now take would ultimately be harmful to the pro-choice agenda.

Claiming that abortion should be allowed, but that it is not good and should be limited begs the question, "why is abortion not good and why should it be limited?"

Though there is the reasoning that abortion involves several health risks for the women getting them (it is an "operation," which always involves risks, emotional health problems, etc.), the buck doesn't stop there. Ultimately, asking "why" would lead many down the pro-life path for answers.

The more intellectually consistent approach is for Obama to maintain his pre-campaign position--that there should be no limits on abortion.

[mattheweste]

The reason for not liking late term abortion is the same reason we have laws against hurting animals or child pornography or tampering with dead bodies, or why its icky to sell human organs. Society has an interest in protecting the 'sanctity" as it were of the concept of a person. You could argue all those things of themselves hurt nobody. But they may lead to a devalued image of what it is to be a person and that may lead to real violence.

Even if the fetus doesn't count as a human being it is close enough that it should have limited protection.

[Pithaughn]

Nope, the reason late term abortions are legal is so that emergency room professionals, th ones with MD and RN etc after their name, can save lives without worring about a far right , fundy DA prosecuting them for murder, so the DA can garner some brownie points with his fundy golfing buddies.

[slaxx]

actually, all those things hurt others or have negative effects. think about it. also, many see abortion has hurting (or rather, killing) a baby; it's not just about the idea of making things "sacred" to prevent future devalutaion and/or violence. that's ridiculous.

the reason is that babies are more developed and may survive on their own late in pregnancy and because in all honesty it more closely resembles a real person and offends our sensibilities more than a clump of cells that can't be seen by the human eye does.

[booksnmore4you]

Would someone please get Professor Westen into the Obama campaign as an adviser. Please?

[AngelaChenShui]

I agree! This piece was excellent.

[aleco]

Miscarriages are very common and occur frequently. Except for responsibility, is there any difference between an abortion and a miscarriage in terms of result? Religious people will say that a miscarriage is God's will. Does that mean that God in a sense is an abortionist?

Essentially, I'm against abortions. But I am also realistic and accept the rational for abortions in cases of rape and incest. Also, the age of the mother must be a consideration. I don't see how a fourteen year old could bring a child into the world. It would depend on her parents and the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. Nevertheless, it would be the family's decision to make.

Late term abortions in my opinion are tantamount to murder. I agree with the pro-lifers that claiming the life of the mother was at risk has probably been abused. Therefore, I support the idea that all late term abortions should be treated like a homicide and throughly investigated and an inquest held.
If the evidence shows that the life of the mother was not at risk and that the justification was faked, there should be criminal sanctions for both mother and doctor.

Abortion, as a means of birth control, is another problem. But neither can I see bringing an unwanted child into the world. It's a tough call. Abortions are going to occur whether legal or not. It's human nature. What should really matter when voting is who would be best for my family and my country.

[judithk]

Roe v. Wade leaves abortion decisions to the woman in the first trimester. The state CAN have REASONABLE say in the second trimester and any procedure after ( I think) 24 weeks, must be solely to protect the life or health of the mother.

Late term procedures are used when there is stillbirth or profound fetal anomalies that are not compatible with life. It's not murder, which is an emotionally charged word. As far as investigations are concerned, who would do your investigating? Who would decide if the abortion was appropriate? Do you really want to jail women for making what they deem appropriate medical decisions? You write as if you have knowledge that women do this frivolously. You're mistaken.

[aleco]

Judithk, my reference to late term abortions was in the context of when it's alleged that the life or health of the mother was in jeopardy. The other conditions you mention would certainly qualify as justification for an abortion. Nevertheless, there should be an inquisition in each case involving a late term abortion to determine the truth.

I forgot to say that justification for an abortion, in addition to rape and incest, would also include a fetus that was in some way defective.

I don't believe women who have late term abortions do so frivolously. I do agree with the pro-life advocates that the potential for abuse exists.

[bimplebean]

Results are all that matter. If we can reduce unplanned pregnancies it's a win/win and the abortion issue won't even come up.

Focusing on shared goals and the means to achieve them are the way to win hearts and minds.

[lwaxanatroi]

Friends, abortion is not and was not and never will be a winning issue for the Dems. Freedom is a winning issue, however, and this is about freedom. And the freedom that is under attack by the right that affects far more women, and far more men, than abortion is birth control. The fanatics on the right are calling standard birth control "abortion" and lumping it together with stabbing a baby with a pair of scissors. Lets shine a bright light on that and tell the electorate that the far right thinks condoms are murder. Stop playing to their strengths and for God's sake stop buying into their crap about being pro-life.

[riverhippie]

Well... I think you are mistaking those on the right with those who are Catholic. I don't know of any non-Catholic rightwingers who are against birth control. Have any examples?

[colleen2]

"I don't know of any non-Catholic rightwingers who are against birth control."

Many fundamentalist Protestants are opposed to contraceptives, at least the ones that actually work.

[arachne646]

An exellent approach to people who don't share my view that God gives us each these wonderful bodies to do with as we choose, not to oppress others with. I'd point out to those who would prevent abortions with laws making them difficult to get, that this only affects poor women, women who can afford a plane ticket can travel to a nice Canadian clinic, or a good one in Mexico for a "d & c for partial miscarriage". So many could be prevented by education and affordable, appropriate birth control, though.
As for killing already born humans, governments have repeatedly proven they execute criminals later proven innocent, and invade countries in error. Inserting religious beliefs in legislation is dangerous. Is it safe to give the government the licence to execute humans?

[08politicaljunkie]

I love the way you stated this

[scotus1]

The abortion issue has long been one tailor made for the Democrats, given the polled opinions of most Americans, and for just as long, the Dems have soft-pedaled it, pandering to the minority view in general and the Christian Right in particular. And the first step ought to be to pledge never ever to use the term, "pro life," in the discussion. "Pro life" was a linguistic device invented to make an unpopular position more palatable to the general public. The expression only works if you buy the seminal (no pun) premise that a fertilized egg is a human life. And that's the rub. The main rub. How about we come up with our own linguistic device to tell it like it is. May I suggest, "FORCED BIRTH?"

[JXJASON]

Thou shalt not go to war. Why are McCain's followers not shouting GET OUR COUNTRY OUT OF THE WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN????

And what about everyone learning birth control in public and private schools??? Or FREE condoms???

The issue of birth control still has not been settled even WITH Roe V. Wade.

In the meantime, we have a lying, war-monger candidate for President who doesn't have any morals.

Will the country vote for McCain???? God isn't helping us now in our time of recession, inadequate health care for 47 million americans, FORECLOSURES, business failures, etc, etc.

REMEMBER who has been in office for over 20 years.

For god's sakes, Don't elect John " the joker " McCain

[08politicaljunkie]

You've omitted that he favors the death penalty and has consistently voted against civil rights

[slaxx]

"Why are McCain's followers not shouting GET OUR COUNTRY OUT OF THE WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN????"

because the people in iraq and afghanistan are muslim and i think some of his followers view this whole thing as a holy war.

[oscartucker]

At first, I thought a Forum hosted by Rick Warren was a good idea; I was disappointed that Warren, who asked that the candidates not give their "stump speech", allowed McCain to do just that and that he did not ask McCain to really answer the questions. When Warren was asked by McCain, "Can I tell another story?", it would have been nice for him to say, " Senator McCain, for right now, please let me ask you another question so that the audience can know your platform" or something else nice to stay on the subject. Rick Warren did not seem to be forthright on Larry King Live on Monday evening, etiher.

[docted1251]

I am an OB doctor. I believe progressives should lobby The Supreme Court to limit Elective Abortions to the first trimester-14 weeks. Most of us find second trimester elective terminations abhorrent. We should then all agree that we need policies in place in this country to make abortions as rare as possible. We need to examine different studies and decide which methods work the best to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. This would not please everyone, but I believe the political center would embrace this approach.

[truesoccermom]

I consider myself in the political center and I think this position is the right one. (However, one can't "lobby" the Supreme Court. The issue would have to be legislated by a state first and then it would have to be taken up for judicial review by the court).

[docted1251]

I know that this is how it works. I meant we should encourage them to find an appropriate case to rule on for this issue. Sorry i didn't express myself better

[riverhippie]

Agreed. I'm for anything that reduces abortions, except completely outlawing them.

[JustMyWords]

You have the prerogative not to perform abortions past 14 weeks, and I have certainly have no problem with a doctor choosing not to perform any procedure that makes him/her uncomfortable, no matter what the reason. I would fight against any law or court decision that would require an individual doctor to perform an abortion. But it goes both ways. It is not up to the court to make a decision for you, and it is not up to the court to make the decision for women, either.

[docted1251]

I performed first and second trimester abortions as a resident. Since coming into private practice, I have delivered well over 3 thousand babies but have elected not to perform any abortions. So, this is not about me. Doctors are not ever forced to perform them to my knowledge. You have to protect a woman's right to choose, but with fetal viability now occuring as early as 24 to 25 weeks, you have to draw the line somewhere. I am trying to find a way to keep abortion safe and legal but make it a less divisive issure for the country.

[08politicaljunkie]

I can't imagine a woman waiting so long before making that decision. In your experience, approximately how often does that happen -- waiting until the 2nd trimester or later? And what are some of the reasons?

[docted1251]

the vast majority are first trimester. The second trimester patients usually say they didn't know they were pregnant. i can't prove it, but I'm always suspicious that it is a case of denial

[ADR]

I could go along with this. I also think that around month 4 the baby should have been reported to the US government and they should provide a "pre-SSN" for that baby.

[jsinclair]

Warren (I cannot dignify this fraud with "Pastor"), lied to Obama, to his congregation, and to Americans. Why? To help McCain get the advantage of listening to Obama ahead of time (in complete violation of the rules he'd agreed to).

I'm sure he also received and practiced the questions in advance.

This was a "no-win" audience for Obama, but I'm glad he did it.

(1) It exposed McCain as a cheater and phony and this evangelical leader of the US's largest "megachurch" as the same;

(2) It set the bar higher for McCain in the debates. Can he do it without cheating? We'll see.

(3) It gave Obama a "heads-up". In the age of television shaping public opinion, he MUST get some better writers to help him with soundbites. (Is Peggy Noonan available?)

Really, "It's above my pay grade" is a very poor answer as it could seem flippant. And he didn't need a rambling answer to follow--just a concise explanation (shorter the better) followed by "I a woman's right to choose and feel it is important that the Constitution continues to guarantee that right."

I hope he will prepare for the debate with TELEVISION in mind, and--without condescending or pandering--remember the average American.

His eloquence usually serves him well, but a debate or interview is not a defense of a dissertation. Americans, by and large, don't enjoy or even "get" philosophical musings (not even on philosophical issues, like religion). Remember your audience!

[gotborked]

Warren informed both candidates ahead of time of the types of questions they would be asked. Catch up.

[JohnShank]

I don't think it matters if John McCain was out on the stage the whole time listening to Obama. Those two men, or anyone, really, who is running for the office of president, should have answers to those questions, or questions like them, at the ready at all times. These issues should be settled in the minds of the candidates. It isn't a pop-quiz on new material that candidates JUST learned. These are issues and questions that I believe everyone who runs for president should have ready, well-reasoned, honest answers to. That being said, I thought both candidates acquitted themselves well. I didn't always agree with their positions, but by and large thought they gave good, honest, well-reasoned answers.

[Lexica]

Interesting article. Once again, however, here is someone writing that ..."Obama should have said....."

I have read that preface, by a multitude of commentators, in regard to most major issues that the Senator has addressed. Having an opinion is important, and expressing it is part of being an American citizen, but claiming that the campaign would fare better if only the candidate spoke the words you choose is unrealistic. We all think we know better: If he would just use certain words, or present his ideas in a certain way, the masses would understand.

A political campaign is nerve-wracking, for those inside AND outside. I'm sure the candidate and his advisors are doing the very best they can. Our 'second guessing' is not especially helpful.

[dagnew]

Very, very well said!

[CarmanK]

But the campaigns need to listen, Obama is not just trying to convince others, he is shoring up his support and giving Dems the ammunition to fight on and fight hard. The Dems knew or should have know with all his rhetoric, the Republicans were not going to lay down and roll over. 30% of the "base" still think George W is doing a fine job. So that is the mentality. This race is for Obama to lose and it is time the intellectual swagger took on some passion and pain for John McCain and his cronies.
Abortion is not the issue, that should be a focus of this campaign. The Republicans have the "noise machine" to shout out the common sense on the issue. Even Pope Benedict said that for a person of conscience there are other issues that carry weight. Let the Pro Choice and Pro lifers fight it out. The Democratic view should be written, referred to and moved on. Like another campaign worker said to me, don't let the repugs drag you into a lengthy discussion, because that delays you from contacting others. And yeah, you are right. That answer on the time life begins was lame. Obama need to get sharper and less cerebral in his answers. Wasn't that the complaint about Joe Biden: he tended to ramble instead of hitting the nail on the head the first time. Stop the nuancing, get to the point.