You can read the whole thing here.

I haven’t read it all yet, but the bit about the second amendment jumped out at me:

We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.

As Marc Ambinder notes, that’s quite a change from the 2004 platform which read simply: “...we will protect Americas’ Second Amendment rights to own firearms.”

In the wake of the Heller decision is it really a good thing for Democrats to go wobbly on gun rights?

And what’s this “what’s right for Chicago may not be right for Cheyenne” business?  Are citizens in Chicago somehow less endowed with a right to keep and bear arms than the people of Cheyenne?

This smacks of policy set by political expedience and not, you know, what’s actually in the Constitution.

This bit on abortion jumped out at me too:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports...Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

If I’m reading that right, Obama is proposing that women don’t just have a right to murder their unborn children (which is disputable in and of itself) but also a right to demand that other people pay for it.

I’d note that my right to keep and bear arms is actually in the Constitution (unlike abortion), but I’m not expecting my fellow taxpayers to subsidize my ammo purchases.