I think that Ms Walsh is being a bit harsh on Obama in this editorial. I am EXTREMELY disappointed in Obama's vote on the FISA bill. I am starting to wonder whether Obama is a one-term stop-gap president. My faith in him has slipped dramatically over this issue, but I still think that Ms. Walsh goes too far.

She mentions Obama's support of the Supreme Court decision on the 2nd Amendment. There is nothing new there. Obama said more than once during the primary season that he agreed with that misinterpretation of the Constitution. I strongly disagree with him on the issue.

As for the "partial birth abortion" issue, abortion is a tricky subject and a politician taking a nuanced stance on a minor sub-issue is not something to panic about. The law provides ample time for women who are mentally distressed by an unplanned pregnancy to get an abortion. The third trimester abortion is a brutal procedure that should only be used in the MOST extreme of cases. There is a big moral difference between terminating an early pregnancy and killing a child who is capable of surviving outside of the womb. Delayed buyer's remorse is not good enough. The argument that Ms Walsh is trying to make actually makes the Republican position on partial birth abortion seem more acceptable because her position is well down the slippery slope that Republicans were warning about.

As for her Clinton comments: Joan, you had come so far back into the reality based community. Don't retreat now. You say that We can't know that Hillary would have voted just like Obama did if she were the nominee. True, but then you make an equally unsubstantiatable claim that she learned her lesson from her war authorization vote. This is not only speculation, but ignores obvious evidence to the contrary- KYL-LEIBERMAN, 'nuff said.

What Obama did was wrong. I have contacted the campaign and let them know my disgust. I made it clear that my future support was not assured if the Obama that I helped make the nominee is not more clearly seen in Obama the nominee. No, Obama was never the great Progressive hope that he was made out to be, but Hillary was never a centrist/populist either. Criticize Obama for what he did, but keep the fantasy elements out of it, please.

So the article goes on for two pages then concludes that what they are advocating is the most likely outcome anyway. Did summer vacations create the need for such mindless filler?

The reason not to make abortion reduction a part of the Democratic platform could not be more simple. It is a double edged sword. For every "values voter" who are pleased by the inclusion of the idea of abortion reduction, how many are going to be turned off by issues such as contraception that are a vital part of any strategy to reduce abortions? The potential is there to do more harm than good, even among the "values voters", with a platform built on abortion reduction.

I do not, however, think that Obama should run from the issue. He should be just as willing to criticize avoidable abortions as he was to criticize absent fathers. Perhaps at the political edges, there is some odd belief that abortion rights are more solid now than 30 years ago, but I don't think that these people are being honest about the situation. While I don't have hard numbers, I would guess that a majority of the pro-choice community falls much closer to the middle. Just because one supports a woman's right to choose does not automatically mean that you personally approve of the choice in many of the situations.

With sexual freedom comes sexual responsibility. The argument from the far left that we see here is one that longs to reject any notion of responsibility for one's choices and that is not an idea that will fly in the fly-over states that Obama wants to win in November.

While making abortion reduction a part of the platform this year would be a bad idea, making abortion reduction central to and inseparable from the pro-choice movement would do wonders to heal the red-blue divide.

Is this, (aside from the joke of Bush v Gore), the absolute worst Supreme Court decision since Plessy v Ferguson? It certainly joins Plessy and Dred Scott on a short, shameful list.

PUMAs, this election matters. I am sorry you are disappointed or angry that your candidate lost, but stop and think about what the Supreme Court has just done and you will see why your bitter feelings are meaning less and less every day. The Supreme Court of the United States of America just ruled that half of the Second Amendment is totally irrelevant to interpreting it. They just rewrote a key part of the Bill of Rights.

There is too much at stake in this election to hold a grudge. If Obama loses, we ALL lose. In 2012, you and I will have to make a decision based on Obama's performance in office. If the FISA fiasco and other recent disappointments are the start of a trend, I will be right out there fighting for Obama's primary challenger in 2012. Or maybe he will surprise you. We can't know.

What we can know is that McCain beatng Obama would likely give us a Court that will rape the Constitution for years to come. I question whether the American experiment can survive a Supreme Court that skews any further right. Yesterday, the Supreme Court rewrote the Second Amendment. Next they may rewrite the First, or the Fourth, or the Fifth. We cannot allow that to happen.

Does anyone else find the advertisements for Puma smeakers to the right somewhat hilarious?