I doubt there's anything fundamentally dangerous going on with respect to the Dems positions on choice.  The Dems aren't trying to get elected to fight a Republican president and Republican majority who will do all kinds of nefarious things including chip away at Roe.  These Dems will be the majority and the type of justices that most of these Democrats would support having on the Supreme Court can automatically be expected to be in the `save' Roe camp.  

So maybe the specific symbolism of Roe isn't as important today as it was before the 2006 mid terms.

Although it can, imo, only help the Dems to be seen as fighting for something (not quite the same as Armando's view that if the Dems aren't seen as fighting for something basic as Roe they will be hurt). The question is should the symbol of what they are fighting for be Roe?

It's important to recognize that Roe isn't the only problem.   Hence Armando's summary of Balkin's point:

It requires an extreme judge fully out of the mainstream to overturn Roe. And such a judge will not be extreme just on Roe. He'll be extreme on Griswold. Extreme on the Commerce Clause. Extreme on Separation of Church and State. Extreme on the Fourth Amendment.

Roe is an easy symbol.  If you make the claim that overturning Roe is extreme, Democrats know what you mean.  It shows what you are fighting for.

Is there a different route to make the case for what Democrats stand for and are willing to fight for?   Well, it's harder.  Try talking about the Commerce Clause.  People's eyes glaze over.  Try making the case that conservative judges are willing to chip away at  Wickard v. Filburn (which has already happened) or even Heart of Atlanta Motel.  Most likely you will draw a blank stare.  And even if you can explain it, most people would shrug it off.  We are so used to the idea of a federal government with broad Commerce Clause powers that the idea it could change is hard for the average person to understand.  

And until New Orleans was drowned, most people seemed ready to buy the Republican line that the federal government wasn't useful and, hence, the constitutional limitation of its powers might be just fine.  The fate of New Orleans and the gross incompetence of the Bush Administration on almost all fronts does, though, give the Dems an opening to show what they stand for.  

Even more, the illegal wiretapping cases and the court's refusal to grant standing give an opportunity to show how 4th Amendment rights are being chipped away.

So maybe it's not necessary to rely on the symbolism of Roe. Or the symbolism of any particular court case.

Remember - this is purely a political question. It doesn't come down to making Roe an issue in order to save Roe.  In the end, if for whatever reason we defeat the Right's attempt to put the court under complete control of extremist judges for the rest of our lifetime then we will have done what we can at this point to save Roe.  (Subject to Justice Kennedy's decisions).

I think that for a long time the debate was framed on whether or not Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and that is now such a fringe position that it's faded into the background.

Because of that, maybe politicians on both sides are willing to let it go...pro-choicers are happy not to have to have such a divisive issue in the forefront, while anti-choicers realize that Roe won't be overturned but they can still focus on making abortions increasingly difficult to obtain on a more local scale.

Same deal with gun-control. Most people think it's important for government to restrict who can own guns based on their criminal history and psychological state and that the government should keep track of who has guns, but few believe that sane, law-abiding citizens should be prevented from owning guns and using them responsibly.

Both of these issues are too complex and volatile to take a hard pro or anti position on. More subtle, nuanced positions are in order.

And they are now asking, if it is overturned what will happened.  Will authorities be arresting women who seek and abortion?  Will doctors who perform abortions be sent to jail?

A lot of men an women remember those days.  And if you don't, a serious look at Dirty Dancing, or A Raisin in the Sun will give you and idea.

A lot of people who are pro-life are now pro-"safe legal and rare".  A lot of people who were on the fence are now wanting to see Roe v. Wade stay in place.

As an issue, Bush's success has made it dead.  Just as the gay marriage and anti-immigration issues are dead.  The only live wedge issue Republicans have is gun control and Democrats are not biting on that one.

50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

Here's Hillary's Agenda For Reproductive Health Care and a critique pointing out what it lacks - explicit coverage for abortion under UHC, requirements for religious organizations to provide services they consider "immoral," and failure to restore Medicaid funding for abortion.