He later clarified his answer with another reporter:

Reporter: You said that mental distress shouldn't be a reason for late-term abortion?

Obama: "My only point is this -- historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family. And it is ..I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions.

In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case.

I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand."

Unlike some folks, I don't see this a direct, intentional denial of what he said, though you could forgive them for thinking that. Rather, it seems like he simply goofed on his first answer. It happens. But for somebody with such a reputation for verbal deftness and consummate positioning - not to mention an impressive command of the law - this seems curiously ham-handed. It comes across as though he'd never actually gamed the issue out, which does little to endear him to either side of the fence.

That being said, Obama shouldn't just get a pass on this one. There are substantive concerns here. Every time politicians start talking this loose about abortion, women have their rights chipped away just a little bit more. Digby, as usual, is there first and probably best.

I have only two things to add:

1. Jim Wallis wants an abortion reduction plank in the Democratic platform (despite there already being one).
2. About the author

   Name: Cameron Strang
   
   Bio: Cameron Strang, 32, is the president and founder of RELEVANT Media Group. You can email him at yadda yadda yadda...

It never pays to ascribe intentions, but it would have to be tempting for someone like Obama - whose religious outreach program is based in large part on attracting young Evangelicals - to throw out some easy chin music in an interview with an obscure magazine targeted directly at that audience. Precisely because a ban on late-term abortions with a mental-health clause wouldn't pass legal muster, Obama was on safe ground with saying that there shouldn't be an exception "if a woman just doesn't feel good".

The distinction between mental "distress" and mental "health" is meaningless in legal and policy terms. So he throws out a little bone to look tough on the issue, and goes on with what he was going to do anyway. Easy.

Digby says:

I have no doubt that Obama supports Roe vs Wade but I never had any great expectation that he would be a champion for reproductive rights. There are very few politicians around who are, even of the so-called liberal variety. They'd all be vastly relieved if the issue would just go away. The fallacy, of course, is thinking that it wouldn't immediately be supplanted by another wedge issue for the right to beat the left over the head with. It's how they organize themselves.

So why not just hold the line on this one?

Indeed. But as it happens, they don't even need another wedge issue. The same old ones will do just fine, thank you very much:

Oh my. The fight against Barack Obama on abortion has officially begun. The Christian Defense Coalition, who are known to shock folks from time to time, have come up with a new campaign called: “Barack Obama: The Abortion President”. They are going to make clear that Obama wants taxpayers to foot the bill on abortions. They are also going to lay bare his record on abortion. They’ll conduct a news conference Tuesday in front of the Hart Senate Office Building where Obama’s Senate office is located.

It goes on from there, all the typical shrill charges about those baby-murdering Democrats. The people who are going to vote on the issue of abortion are never going to vote Democratic, and they're never going to trust a Democratic contender who promises to limit abortions, bring down their unfortunate numbers, or take a hard line with those self-indulgent womenfolk who just don't feel good about to giving birth to an ancephalous stillborn. This really should have been easy for Obama:

Q: What's your position on late-term abortions?
A: Roe v. Wade is settled law. Next question?

Instead, he's made a hash of it, and the right wing religious creeps are going to beat him over the head with abortion anyway. Worse, it allows the conservative narrative to run his campaign. David Brody says:

This is Obama’s challenge with Evangelicals. He can talk about the social justice issues all he wants and yes, it resonates to a certain extent but unless he moves on abortion (not likely) he’ll have a problem.  If he shows some support for parental notification laws or the annual fetal pain bill that moves through Congress then that will help insulate him to a degree on the extremist abortion tag.

The bigger issue here for the Obama campaign is just how widespread and vocal pro-life groups may end up being on this issue. Obama can’t afford the extreme liberal tag and if these groups continue to pound home the abortion theme, it doesn’t fit the narrative that Obama needs to be successful.

In case that's not obvious enough, allow me to spell it out for you. Nice little campaign you got here. It'd be a shame if something should happen to it. Say, a group of pro-lifers shows up and wrecks the joint? A nice guy like you can't afford that.

The only result to be had from trying to propitiate a group of wild-eyed true believers like the pro-life movement is more demands and more scorn. The kids will vote for Obama on other issues or not on abortion. Nobody will ever vote for a Democrat for being pro-life, because by definition, Democrats are not pro-life enough. Trying to fudge that point gets a liberal nowhere except in weasel's column among the base.

So, really, why not just hold the line on this one?