Maybe you should have left the radio on, Tracie. That woman said she voted for Bush because of his stance on abortion, but now "too many other things have happened". In other words, she did prioritize her concerns about the economy and the environment and so on over her pro-life stance. She never said she thought about not voting for Obama because he is pro-choice.

And you know what? I am strongly pro-choice, but I understand pro-lifers who prioritize that concern over other issues. Because if you really think abortion is murder, then it's logical to prioritize stopping murder over things like the unemployment rate.

We're never going to get anywhere in the debates dividing American culture unless we all try to understand where the other side is coming from, even if we'll never agree with them.

I dunno, I see where she's coming from. I try not to be a one-issue voter, but to be honest I don't know if I could stomach a candidate if, let's say theoretically, he/she had all of Obama's good ideas about the economy and sustainability and the like, but was anti-choice. I just don't know if I could vote for that hypothetical candidate, all the good points aside, if it meant giving up the right to my own uterus. Just flip anti-choice and pro-choice, and that's probably her feelings on it.

Good points, bifemmefatale and EntomologyGirl.

Bifemmefatale-- Too right about the understanding needed to bridge the so-called "culture wars." I view this as a calling of mine, given I grew up in the deepest pocket of the Bible Belt in an evangelical Protestant household and still understand some of the beliefs and attitudes and concerns of that community.

Entomology girl, you're right--in a way, each of us has our own personal political "deal-breaker." If, for someone, it's domestic oil, then that person might end up voting for McCain-Palin even if they otherwise agree with Obama on the major issues of economy and foreign policy. We've also heard a lot about "fiscal conservatives" who would be Democrat or progressive if it weren't for their beliefs on taxes and the economy. This is not widelyt derided, but is accepted as a fact of political life, and of political diversity.

This brings up the question, then: why are sex-related issues (homosexuality, sex ed, birth control, and abortion/choice) perceived by some as somehow more irrational or less legitimate reasons to choose candidates (think of the derision flung the way of "one-issue voters" of both parties when the issue in question is sex-related)?