In their Media City column, our friends over at the New York Post had this to say about this week's issue:

Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham takes it upon himself to explain that, if elected, Obama will be forced to deal with a nation that still leans rightward. A columnist counters--in less compelling fashion, as if to illustrate why he isn't the boss--that the nation is ready for a big change in the form of a resurgent Left. Anyway, it seems a little early for this discussion: aren't they worried, like the rest of the media, that Obama will find (gulp!) some way to lose, just like Gore and Kerry did.

Still, most of our readers who said they are Catholic disagreed with the notion that Obama, a Democrat, could be the more pro-life of the candidates: "It's amazing to me that the likes of these three great equivocators are still trying to rationalize something that can't be rationalized," writes commenter Thomas Kempis. "The Church teaches that respect for life trumps all issues, period. Prideful ivory tower Catholics like Kmiec, Kaveny and Cafardi can't and won't submit to the authority of the Church they profess to adhere to. And that's one of the hallmarks of Jesus' teaching: more of Him, less of me." Hundreds of others agreed, adding: "The authors are wrong in many ways. The "faithful"cannot back any pro-choice candidate from either party and still meet the definition of "the faithful". Shame on them for using their credibility to harm the Church for political and personal gain."

But the authors aren't the only Catholics (or Christians, for that matter) who have done some soul-searching and decided that Obama is the right candidate for them. A longer post from one reader who calls herself a pro-life Christian writes:

"I would rather Obama be pro-life. However, I believe that he truly values life, and wishes to move us closer to saving lives as we work together on this issue vs. the hard line stance of the current administration that has proven impotent in this issue. I also believe that Obama respects all human life and will work to promote a better life for all Americans and people in the global community. In such an environment, where we care for the whole individual, surely, we can save more lives from the abortion table than we currently do."

The debate gets more complicated when you consider that Obama's running-mate, Joe Biden, is Catholic and that McCain himself has changed his views on abortion throughout his nearly 30-year political history. Both these facts were used often on each side as crossfire.

To me, it's fascinating that so many people seem to be coming out, in a way, as single-issue voters. The conventional wisdom is that social issues -- gay marriage, abortion, or stem cells -- take a backseat in any wartime election, especially one that immediately follows an economic crisis. Perhaps many of you don't feel that way, but I think commenter Megan1582 (who, full disclosure, is pro-choice) summed this up best with her comment:

"I would never make a choice on a candidate based on one factor. Especially something that is already legal! If you are against abortion, that's your prerogative but you shouldn't let that be your ONLY reason for voting for someone. And because abortion is already legal just because a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice does not mean that anything will come of their beliefs anyway. Right now, with the way the world is, I would say abortion would not be on the top of everyone's list of things to attend to when they become president."

So, even if Barack Obama is chosen as president of a center-right or center-center country, what does that mean for the future? "The next ten years will be difficult as the Republicans realize that they have lost the hearts and minds of people," writes one commenter on the cover story. "I think your argument is correct [that America is conservative] if you are speaking about people over the age of 60... young people have seen their parents dealing with health care issues, layoffs at age 50+ and insurmountable credit card debt. They don't see wealth as a measure of success but instead are realizing the world they are entering is more uncertain and they will need help from the government to have a decent life."

My colleague Andrew Romano, over at Stumper, looked for similar feedback on a post of his. Few responded, but there was this comment:

I would tend to agree that America is moving more to the center, and maybe even slightly to the left, albeit very slightly.  I think it requires an 'unbundling' of social and economic points of view.  If someone is a conservative democrat, it typically means that they are socially liberal but economically conservative, and the opposite holds true for a so-called 'liberal republican."  I think that there are and always have been a greater number of people who were/are more liberal socially than they were/are economically...So, if being more socially tolerant (read: less hateful and bigoted) means that we're moving left, I agree.  I don't think, however, that we are moving further left on the economic front just yet, but I would imagine that will change more as we 'spread the wealth' around.  It will be interesting to see what that ends up looking like once Obama is in office.