Kosnomore, I think your missing the demographic fault line in the Evangelical community.

Obama is not trying to flip the over 40 James Dobson crowd, he is trying to soften the under forty crowd, that thinks completely defining morality as "gay marriage and abortion" is old school thinking.

Sure, hard core-Pro-Life activists are not voting for Obama, though, truthfully, a lot of them completely mistrust McCain as well.

This is about trying to peal off some of this younger supposed base from McCain, not about trying to win the traditional hard core clinic marching fundies.

You assume that pro-lifers are one issue voters.  I doubt that all of them are.

and yet I am here...in the Democratic party...of my own free will.

Not everything is as cut and dried as you think !!

I'm tired of polls that offer a choice of either agreeing with the diarist or some lunatic fringe option with nothing in between.

Glug, glug, glug.

don't get near any open flames, you might have a bad accident

Those who claim it is are extremists.  I do think it is murder at a certain point and at that point should not be allowed unless the mothers physical health is in danger(late term abortions.)  

With my stance, pro life zealots call me a baby killer, and pro choice zealots claim I hate women and are taking away their freedoms.  To both camps I say, grow the hell up.

I'm honestly not sure whether abortion is murder. I don't know. I think it's an incredibly touchy issue, and while I fall on the side of a woman's right to choose, it's still an issue that keeps me up at night. It's not as simple as you might like it to be.

I'm sure there are plenty of pro-life folks who aren't single issues voters and, since abortion is currently legal, don't see Democrats as making things "worse" on the abortion issue.  

Not to mention the millions who are uncomfortable with abortion and wouldn't mind some restrictions on the practice, but not necessarily an outright ban.

If you think Obama is going after single issue, pro-life voters...well, that really doesn't make any sense.

I'm pissed about Obama's "that's above my pay grade" answer on multiple levels. Sorry, but when you're running for President of the U.S., nothing is above your pay grade. The whole approach was just a blatent attempt to pander to the religious right. He chose to answer the question as though he's running to be the chief theologist or chief scientist of the U.S., when he should have just answered it like a Consitutional Law Professor, and U.S. Senator who is running for President.

The simple answer is: "This is an issue that has been settled by the U.S. Supreme Court as a Constitutionally protected privacy issue. As a U.S. Senator, or as President, it would be inappropriate and I have no intention to impose my own personal feelings on settled law, or interfere with the separation of powers as established in our Constitution."

It would have been very easy for him to give an answer like this, and it would have gained him respect. The weak answer he gave didn't particularly appeal to Evangelicals, and was a total turn-off to the base who find pandering to the religious right rather disturbing.

I think abortion is murder.  I also think a woman has the right to choose whether she wants to have a baby. I am voting for Obama.

I think this diarist misses a large demographic, and I'm not just talking about younger evangelicals as someone above mentioned. Howabout pro-life Democrats? Howabout moderate Catholics? Howabout the more liberal protestant religions? Something like 80%+ of this country self-identifies as Christian, correct? Well I don't know of any mainstream Christian sects that are pro-choice. Dems aren't losing 80/20 in the elections so obviously a lot of Christians vote Democratic.

For example, my parents are pro-life, highly committed Catholics who are registered Democrats. They struggle with the pro-life issue and my Mom is still not over Bob Casey being shut out of the convention many years ago. She asked me about a year ago, "Where do I fit in the Democratic party?" She voted for HRC--because in her words, "I've waited to see a woman as president my whole life. You couldn't understand what this means to many women my age (~58)." (She was right about that, I was/am an ardent Obama supporter). I think she'd chew her own fingers off before voting for Bush-lite, but I don't know if she's come around on Obama yet (my Pops is an Obamamaniac (he's white, middle-class by the way)).

So while I believe in progressivism, I don't think it can come at the expense of the rest of our party. We should be finding a common ground with these people; meeting them on their own terms and making logical arguments in favor of progressive positions. I'm all over my Mom about gay equality. She believes marriage is "between a man and a woman," but she struggles greatly because believing that denies civil liberties to gays. Not everyone that believes in traditional marriage is a Dobsonian bigot, nor are they a latent planned parenthood bomber. They were raised a certain way, with a certain faith, which has its dogmatic theology, but they aren't these rabid conservative characitures you see on the news or especially on the internet.

Bottom line is, yes, the base is important, but the base and nobody else isn't going to win us a single election. Nor is it going to change any minds. The base will stay at 15% and never increase and we'll be all preaching to the like minded choir hoping that a generation or two from now things will be different. Here's a better idea: let's find a place for all Democrats in the Democratic party and carve out some new space for some Independents and disaffected Republicans.