What are Clinton's Chances?
by Denise Morris on 11/03/2007 at 6:01 AM
The three leading Democratic candidates (Clinton, Obama and Edwards) faced off in a debate in Philadelphia a couple of nights ago. According to this Newsweek article, it was pretty fierce battle as Clinton was attacked by the other two for most of the night:
The Clinton campaign typically enters the spin room after a debate like a triumphant conquering army. But after the fireworks at Drexel University Tuesday night, the looks on the faces of the Clinton team betrayed an unfamiliar sentiment: concern. Judging from their tone and their body language, Hillary's aides were relieved to have survived the onslaught in Philadelphia—and happy to head back out on the campaign trail.
Although Hillary was feeling the heat on Tuesday night, she is still ahead of her Democratic counterparts in most of the polls. But recently that lead has shrunk, especially in Iowa, which is a crucial state.
What do you all think? Will Hillary Clinton get the Democratic nomination? If she does, do you think she'll win the presidency in 08, or does it depend on whomever the Republican nominee is?
1. natasha said the following at 7:20 AM on Nov 3:
I think Hillary will be our next president regardless of who the republican candidate is.
2. Jonathan from Canada said the following at 7:31 AM on Nov 3:
National Review Online's Jim Geraghty calls this video from the John Edwards campaign the most effective web ad he's seen so far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
The fact that she's been playing the gender card ("poor wittle me, the guys teamed up on me") to get out of this shows genuine desperation. Remember, she's a self proclaimed feminist. Unless she improves, the GOP campaign will wipe her out, no matter who they nominate.
3. John D. said the following at 8:23 AM on Nov 3:
Hillary is the heir apparent.
Almost certainly the Democrats will take the White House in 2008, reflecting popular discontent with the war, and possibly bad economic conditions by the fall of 2008.
We seem to be unable to elect a President who is not a member of one of two families. The last three administrations were Bush - Clinton - Bush and now, it seems likely, Clinton again. You would have to go back to 1976 (Ford/Dole, Carter/Mondale) to find a major party national ticket that did not have a Bush or a Clinton on it. Apparently the Bushes and the Clintons are the Coke and Pepsi of American politics.
4. Adam T. said the following at 9:14 AM on Nov 3:
This election's gonna be an interesting one, that's for sure. As a foreigner looking in, I try to read stuff from both conservative and liberal viewpoints to see what *everyone* thinks about who's going to win.
One theory I've heard that I think has got some real merit goes like this: if Hillary is the Democrat nominee, Republicans will turn out in force to vote against her because they almost universally *hate* her. Voters who might be apathetic about Obama et al will make a special effort to vote against Hillary.
In turn, there are voters who'd be inclined to vote Democrat but won't if it's Hillary - she's not beloved by every Democrat, not by a mile. I think some people are under the impression that if Hillary runs, *Democrats* will turn out in force to vote *for* her because they all love her, and I just don't think that's true; in fact, I think it's the opposite. (The 'anyone but Hillary' crowd seems fairly substantial, for what it's worth.)
So what we may see with a Hillary nomination is Republicans voting en masse with a slight split in the Democratic vote. (The split wouldn't have to be very big - drawing off even 5 percent of Democrat voters could be huge. Remember how slim the margins have been in the last several elections?)
It may not turn out this way, of course, but my point is that I certainly don't think Hillary's got the next election sewn up, not by a long shot. The biggest advantage she'd have, I think, is in the candidates the Republicans are running - they don't seem to have anyone that appeals simultaneously to religious and non-religious conservatives.
I don't think there are any certainties here... as I said, it's gonna be interesting.
5. RJEllie said the following at 10:30 AM on Nov 3:
It's the Democrats race to lose, really. After the last 8 years, the Republicans are at a huge disadvantage, no matter who runs. I think that basically, it would require a massive, massive series of screw-ups by the Democrats to lose this one.
6. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 10:57 AM on Nov 3:
It's funny: during the Primaries the candidates of each party hurl poison at each other, then as soon as one of them gets the nomination, all the others start speaking his (her?) praises.
Politics and irony seem to go hand-in-hand.
Do I think Hilary will be the next President? As of right now, yes. Then again, a lot can happen in a year. But it's pretty clear that Clinton will get the nomination (maybe choose Obama as her running mate?), and if Rudy G. gets the Republican nomination, then the Republicans lose the support from the Religious Right and Clinton is pretty much guaranteed the Presidency.
I personally can't see Americans electing another Republican, after what this administration has done.
7. Tim said the following at 1:33 PM on Nov 3:
Personally, I do not think that Hillary as the Democrat's nominee is inevitable. Polls have shown that between 70-80% of Democrats are still very much undecided. Right now, very few are really following the campaigns closely. Iowa, the first primary, is still up for grabs. I tend to think that if Hillary loses in Iowa that she will lose her momentum.
I tend to think that Hillary is the candidate that Republicans want to face the most. Polls have shown that she has very high negatives with 48% of voters saying that they would not vote for her no matter who the Republican nominee is. In all honesty, most of the Democrats I know complain that George W. Bush won because of his father. Well, if Hillary wins, will it be because of her husband? I think so.
I would love to see someone else get the nomination on both sides besides the current front runners. I think Edwards/Obama/Richardson against a Huckabee/Paul would be interesting.
On a side note, as someone who currently is registered Republican (even though I tried to switch to independent) I hope that Thompson or Giuliani are not the Republican nominee.
8. kim said the following at 1:33 PM on Nov 3:
What I think and what I want are two different stories. I think hillary will get the Dem nod. If I had to pick one, it would be Edwards. At least he is a guy and mostly honest. I think the dems will win no matter who they put in - but I still will only vote for someone who is pro-life. If no one is, then the republican will get my nod.
9. Marc said the following at 3:20 PM on Nov 3:
I was talking with this one woman who said with unrestrained excitement, "We need a woman in the White House!" This concerns me because we CANNOT have a woman as President just for the sake of having a woman as President... Just like we CANNOT have a black man as President just for the sake of having a black man as President. We need to and must elect our next President based on what they stand for, not based on their gender or race or ethnicity.
10. Katharine said the following at 3:37 PM on Nov 3:
It stands to reason by historical and logical standards that democrats are MORE likely to take the White House in '08 than Republicans are to hold it. Hillary is the most likely nomination. I agree she may cause a slight split in the Democrat vote, but perhaps not enough to override the deep conservative dissatisfaction with the Bush administration (a dissatisfaction I do not share)...
The thing that bothers me most, I guess, and which makes me feel in my gut that we're going to see a likely Hillary election is that Conservative talk show hosts all talk as if Hillary is a shoe-in. I think Republicans are going into this with a defeatist attitude...and without a strong candidate that might galvanize the forces AGAINST an extremist like Hillary.
11. Kenneth Clayton said the following at 4:51 PM on Nov 3:
I hope she doesn't but I think if it ends up being a republican that isn't pro life, or is a mormon that she is running against, then they will lose a lot of votes possibly helping Cliton out.
Mike Huckabee '08!!!!
12. Dani said the following at 5:42 PM on Nov 3:
Even though the election is a year away, the topic of presidential candidates takes up a good amount of time in my political science class. The most interesting thing my prof has said so far about the Democratic nominees is that Clinton is the kind of candidate who can win the primaries, but not the nation. Obama can win the nation, but not the primaries.
It will be interesting to see how/if that plays out as described.
13. J.T. said the following at 7:06 PM on Nov 3:
Here's what's gonna happen: Obama will get the presidential nomination and Hilary will become his running mate. Obama will win; but after a month in office, Obama will be "taken care of" by "suspisous circumstances." Hilary will then take the presidency over, and because she was never elected, win the next two presidential races, and end up serving 11 years and 11 months in office. (Although, Dennis Miller said that in her book, Hilary said that she had no knowledge of her husband's infidelity. Quite frankly, if she's not smart enough to figure that one out, then she's not smart enough to be my next president.)
14. Paul said the following at 8:56 PM on Nov 3:
Dear Lord, please not Hilary...
15. farmer Tom said the following at 9:12 PM on Nov 3:
I posted this on another blog, last week I think. I do not play this game. I don't care what Jezebel's chances are, that would assume that I somehow have some say in whether she becomes president.
"I believe God is sovereign. If his plan is for Hillary to be president, it makes no difference who the Republicans run."
From Daniel chapters 4,5
17 "to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."
25 "till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."
32 "until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."
34 "And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
35And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? "
5:18 "O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:
19And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.
20But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him:
21And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will."
"So, if God is sovereign, and he will "appoint whomsoever he will" then my only choice is to vote for a man who believes in the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, and man of righteousness and justice, a man who fears the Lord."
"Pragmatism does not enter the equation. Pragmatism assumes that the choice for leaders in controlled by the vote, that man has the final say. It makes life so simple when we trust the sovereign God to rule in the kingdom of men."
16. Evan said the following at 9:13 PM on Nov 3:
JT, the 22nd amendment states that if you serve more than 2 years of someone else's term, it counts as one of your terms. So it'd be 8 long years, not 11.
17. Mike Theemling said the following at 8:23 AM on Nov 4:
I tend to agree with the sentiment that Hillary would face an uphill battle in the general election unless the Republican candidate is a complete screwball.
This is mainly because she is such a polarizing figure. Most either love her or hate her. And people with passion are those who will end up voting. George Bush barely squeaked by Al Gore in 2000 because of apathy among many voters. George Bush was polarizing in the 2004 election but there were just more people who "loved" him than "hated" him. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I can almost guarentee she will be in the minority of the "love" camp. She would not siphon off enough votes from women just because she is one (It might work if you had a Republican woman running but not a Democratic one, at least in today's environment and platform), and too many associate her negatively with Bill Clinton.
Hillary also has a checkered past. Yes, she is the wife of a popular former president. But since she was so involved in politics as First Lady, she has a lot of baggage such as her failed universal healthcare reforms and the entire Lewinsky scandal. I'm sure a browbeaten question posed with her would be, "How can we expect you to stand up to tyrants and difficult statesmen if you couldn't stand up to a cheating husband?"
But stranger things have happened.
18. Justice said the following at 10:19 AM on Nov 4:
These are not even the best 3 candidate the Dems have to offer, but the more marketable ones, that's what is really sad.
J.T., I'd have to agree with you, does anyone remember how many people literally got 'taken out' that was an enemy of Clintonin the 90's??? Loads of 'unexplained' deaths! Clinton is crooked, when asked about shady financing her husband said everyone's doing it.
19. Justice said the following at 10:20 AM on Nov 4:
John
Coke and Pepsi.... they are used to clean up blood by police officers and eats away at parasites in your stomachs, so maybe they are similar
20. Lauren said the following at 3:15 PM on Nov 4:
I say Rush Limbaugh should run for President. But in all seriousness, I really hope that either Guliani, Thompson, or Huckabee become President. Actually, it wouldn't be THAT bad if Guiliani was President and Huckabee was VP...or the opposite.......but I'm getting over my head here. I'm not even old enough to vote!
I like Mike!
21. James said the following at 3:17 PM on Nov 4:
JT, you know that The Manchurian Candidate was JUST a movie, right?
22. Kit said the following at 7:17 PM on Nov 4:
I'm a registered democrat, but want to point out that not all of us want Hilary in office. Obama's got my vote in the primary; if Hilary does win (which, I am not sure she will--her performance at the last two debates has been shattered by Edwards and Obama) the primary, I'll be voting for the candidate with the best health care and national debt plans.
23. Chris said the following at 7:18 PM on Nov 4:
I think the Christian voting mentality was summarized nicely by Tim:
"but I still will only vote for someone who is [insert position here]. If no one is, then the republican will get my nod."
I'd seriously recommend researching your candidates (on both sides, NOT just the republicans) so you can honestly know who looks like the best person for the office for which you are casting a vote.
On a side note: We spend so much time hurling invectives at a US Senator(s) (2 if you count Obama) simply because they're Democrats. Has anyone yet considered Romans 13... perhaps they're in positions of power because God designed that they be there. Perhaps just for once we can see on this blog something akin to "pray for our leaders, even if they're not the same political party that we are".
24. Caleb said the following at 9:01 PM on Nov 4:
Obama might get the primary (thus Hilary becoming VP) but I don't think he stands a chance at the national because the nation is not ready for a Muslim President. Now if Hilary wins the primary she will probably choose Richardson for VP because then they will get the Mexican minority's to get our and vote. If that happens I think the only chance the Republicans have is to have Huckabee run as he is one of the only Pro-life candidates that the Republicans have that stands a chance. If the Republicans put a anti-life (pro-choice) nominee they will lose all of the pro-life voters.
25. Laura said the following at 9:28 PM on Nov 4:
Well, since I teach American governmnet, I guess I should add my two cents! I think it's still very much up in the air as to whether Hillary will win the nomination. Fundraising is the most important thing candidates do if they want to win, and she's pulling away from Obama in that respect. Nobody else is even close. There's a tension within the Democratic party between east coast Democrats who think she's a shoo-in, and Democrats in the rest of the country, who don't believe she can win in swing states like Ohio and Florida, much less in the South or Mountain West.
There's no question that a lot of Republicans would like Hillary to be the Democratic nominee, as they believe it would galvanize fundraising and coalesce the party's fiscal and social conservative factions (which are fighting amongst themselves at the moment) around one candidate.
Another interesting trend is the increasing interest by many observers on both sides of the aisle in a non-baby boomer candidate. Some voters seem to be tired of fighting about Vietnam and birth control, and are looking for a candidate who can move past the battles of thirty years ago. That could work in Obama's favor, although of course there's the very real issue of racism with which he will have to contend. Anyone who thinks his race won't play a part in a huge percentage of voting districts in the Deep South is kidding himself.
Finally, there's the issue of potential third-party spoilers. If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, social conservatives may well nominate another candidate, thus splitting the Republican vote and virtually guaranteeing the Democratic nominee the win. I wouldn't discount Ron Paul's ability to pull away votes either; he's very popular among enough people to make a difference in the primaries, and if the Libertarians and Constitution party nominate him, they could pull in a higher-than-average percentage of the vote, which again hurts the Republican nominee.
Personally, I'm just looking to vote for a grown-up, someone who can make wise decisions, clean up the mess in Iraq, listen to criticism, restore diplomatic relationships with our most important allies, make real advances in homeland security (rather than all the cosmetic nonsense at the airport that does almost nothing to make us safer), and admit when he or she is wrong. But that may be too much to hope for.
26. joshMshep said the following at 10:16 PM on Nov 4:
Great commercial by John Edwards campaign (http://youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo), which I think reinforces that Hillary isn't a shoe-in.
Huckabee all the way! But that suggestion of Huckabee/Paul really surprised me... Huckabee needs a VP who'd be an asset to his campaign, not a libertarian campaigning on "let's make Iraq another Vietnam."
Huckabee/McCain would be interesting. Or Huckabee/Sarah Palin (see http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/).
next big republicans debate: Nov. 26.
watching with interest,
-joshMshep
27. Louise said the following at 8:02 AM on Nov 5:
Editors of this blog, would it be possible to edit name-calling out of people's posts?
A few weeks back there was a comment which included calling someone a "hoser" and now Ms. Clinton is called "jezebel."
I know the people on here don't care for Ms. Clinton and that is fine of course, but name-calling shows a certain amount of disrespect IMO.
28. Ayla said the following at 8:17 AM on Nov 5:
I share the general sentiment of "Dear Lord, please, not Hillary." I would love to see Huckabee in office, but I'm not so sure any Republican has a shot in office. The media has done so much to make Republicans look bad, I'm not even letting myself hope for a Republican cadidate. I'm just researching as much as possible the Democratic candidates so that I may choose the lesser of the evils.
29. Loris said the following at 8:56 AM on Nov 5:
ANYONE but Hillary. Honestly, I could live with Obama if I had to, but Hillary gives me the creeps. I probably vote for Huckabee in the primary, but I don't think he has much of a chance, humanly speaking. Of course, if he's the Lord's choice, he'll win against all odds.
It will probably come down to economics. If this terrible drought continues, people will vote for whoever can promise them the most relief money.
30. John D. said the following at 9:31 AM on Nov 5:
Yes, pray for our leaders. They occupy their positions of power through the providence of God (and that is just as true of Hitler as of King David), but in a Republic we the people have the power (theoretically, anyway) to seat or unseat them, and to guide their conduct in office. Whether the votes are honestly counted is another question, as is the extent to which voters are able to make informed decisions.
Under our Constitution we the people are sovereign and our elected officials are our servants. Let's not forget that. God has put US in power for such a time as this.
PS If you don't believe in conspiracy theories, Google "Operation Northwoods." See how close we came to faking terrorist attacks and blaming them on a foreign enemy (Cuba) in the 1960s.
31. Carrie said the following at 9:36 AM on Nov 5:
Mike Theemling,
I think you hit the nail on the head with the reason that Christians should not vote for Hilary
"How can we expect you to stand up to tyrants and difficult statesmen if you couldn't stand up to a cheating husband?"
Scripture tells us to examine the lives of our leaders (elders, deacons, pastors). Scripture tells us that if someone cannot manage a household well, then it should rightly follow that they cannot manage the Church either.
Likewise, if Hilary can't "do the right thing" and leave her husband that cheated on her, many times, then what hopes do we have that she could rightly represent the United States to foreign statesmen? Does she really have the guts to lead a nation, that's clouded by war and debt, into prosperity when she can't even stand up for herself and her daughter?
I'm also sick and tired of candidates playing the religion card. It's become obvious that evangelicals are a bunch of lemmings that will vote for whoever their pastor endorses (which is one of the many reasons that pastors shouldn't use the pulpit as a political soapbox). They are playing on evangelicals emotions and that's just sad.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
32. John D. said the following at 9:52 AM on Nov 5:
Carrie,
Hillary knew what Bill was like as soon as she met him. It's fairly well known that they have had a marriage of convenience in which his extramarital activities (and, reportedly, hers as well) have been tolerated while they stay together for the sake of power. His affair with Monica can hardly have caught her by surprise.
Hillary has no shortage of guts. The woman is all backbone. That's what many of us are concerned about.
33. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:04 AM on Nov 5:
This is Hillary's race to lose. Unless she does something REALLY stupid--like getting caught naked with Donna Shalala on video--she'll win a landslide.
Giuliani has no chance of beating her, nor does any pro-choice Republican. McCain has burned too many bridges. Fred and Huckabee are underwhelming.
Ron Paul is my candidate, but he has no chance.
A Hillary win would be the best thing for conservatives, as we are better off with an avowed socialist who represents all things evil (Hillary), rather than evil cross-dressed as conservatism (Rudy, Mitt, McCain).
It's that hot or cold versus lukewarm analogy.
34. JB said the following at 10:15 AM on Nov 5:
I find it interesting that now Hillary is being condemned for working things out with her husband and keeping her family together. Isn't that a good thing? I thought we were all about "family values." I think it may just be possible that the Clintons love each other, he made a rather large and public mistake, and they decided to try to make their marriage work. Good for them! Of course, at this point a significant portion of the country will believe anything negative about a person named Clinton. I heard she's been working with the UN to cause global warming as a pretext for making the Bible illegal!
Anyway, here's how it goes: Clinton and Giuliani win their respective nominations. Clinton vastly out fundraises Giuliani (since her husband can raise a couple million dollars by entering a crowded room and smiling). Plus, the social conservatives (or a portion thereof) take their money and votes to a third party candidate who has no chance. That in turn raises the whole "family values" issue again, where Clinton trounces Giuliani (who doesn't seem to get that whole family thing).
Clinton wins. Giuliani loses. The social conservatives sideline themselves for decades because they acted like Naderite spoilers.
Caleb,
Obama is Christian. His father is Muslim.
35. Carrie said the following at 10:26 AM on Nov 5:
There is a fine line between guts and sheer desperation for power . . . I think we are going to find out where that line is soon.
36. LT said the following at 10:32 AM on Nov 5:
Marc, I agree with you that we can't just have someone in the White House based merely on the fact that she is a woman or that s/he is a certain race. We really need to look at what they support and how they promise (and demontstrate!) that they can lead our country in way that will most benefit the general public. Which leads to my agreement with Tim, that we need to inform ourselves about the various candidates out there.
I recently got this link and found it interesting and helpful: http://ukatis.tchmachines.com/~oaefbgmo/www2/av2008/selectacandidate/quiz.php -- you take a quick quiz on the issues that are important to you and it provides you with a ranking of the candidates and on which views they agree with your own. Perhaps some of you may also find it helpful...
In conclusion, I am literally praying Hillary's not next in the White House. I may have to change citizenship if that happens.
37. farmer Tom said the following at 12:05 PM on Nov 5:
Let me get this straight.
I referenced a Biblical character. She was a woman who ascended to power by marrying the King. She was described in the Bible as a forceful woman who dominated her husband. She was violent (to the point of killing the prophets of God) in defense of Baal worship.
I don't have time to elaborate today, put the woman I called Jezebal, believes in many of the same things that Jezebel believed in.
Child sacrifice, celebrating sexual deviancy, allowing her husband to engage in sexual immorality and then helping to cover up those immoral acts. Jezebel Clinton has been accused by one of her husbands paramours, of engaging in deviant sexual behavior herself,
This woman is a repugnant figure to those who love God and believe that those who claim his name should live lives pleasing to him. Comparing a wicked, evil woman to a wicked, evil woman is not only justified, it is necessary to illustrate the level of debauchery she represents.
Just in case you don't understand the reference to child sacrifice, do a little research, Baal, Astoreth, child sacrifice, it will appall you. Yet today in this country they will kill hundreds of unborn babies in the name of convince. A sacrifice to the god of personal pleasure. It's more convenient to kill the child than to suffer the discomfort of carrying the baby to term, and then of course it requires giving of ones self and time to care for the baby, something to many women in todays culture don't want to do. And Hillary Clinton is a champion of that kind of child sacrifice, Jebezel is an apt description, you don't like it, tough.
depraved nature of Canaanite society, pointing to archaeological evidence of practices such as child sacrifice (burning the infant victims alive). For instance, Hallam, who takes this view, lists a number of pieces of archaeological evidence to support this thesis: "Just a few steps from this temple was a cemetery, where many jars were found, containing remains of infants who had been sacrificed in this temple . . . Prophets of Baal and Ashtoreth were official murderers of little children." "Another horrible practice was [what] they called `foundation sacrifices.' When a house was to be built, a child would be sacrificed, and its body built into the wall. . . . The worship of Baal, Ashtoreth, and other Canaanite gods consisted in the most extravagant orgies; their temples were centers of vice. . . . Canaanites worshiped, by immoral indulgence, . . . and then, by murdering their first-born children, as a sacrifice to these same gods." from Wikipedia
38. Louise said the following at 12:15 PM on Nov 5:
It is totally irrelevent whose beliefs are similar to whose.
It is disrespectful and childish to resort to name-calling.
If doing so makes you happy, so be it.
You're only making yourself look foolish.
Moderators, why is name calling permitted on a Christian blog?
39. Adam Sloope said the following at 12:24 PM on Nov 5:
Eww....politics. This is something I know I should learn to care about and maybe as I grow older I will, but for now, I hate politics. Both sides are wrong in certain ways and our "justice" system and government will always be flawed because we are lead by sinful men (and women, but hopefully not Clinton)
40. Loris said the following at 1:04 PM on Nov 5:
We could wrap up the race and gender cards and still end up with a president of strong character if Condoleeza Rice decided to run at the last minute.
41. Kit said the following at 1:34 PM on Nov 5:
Hm. I just tried to post, but I don't think it allowed me to so I am trying again.
I have mentioned this before in another forum, but, I wonder this:
If we made healthcare more accessible, would abortions decrease?
My hunch is yes. For many women, abortion is a financial necessity. Yes, it's expensive. But it's much cheaper than sonograms, doctor visits until the child is 18, health insurance, etc., etc. Perhaps we need to make a program where any pregnant woman can get the proper care and then allow her to put the baby up for adoption AT NO COST TO HER. I think we would see a decrease in abortion rates, especially among unwed, poor mothers.
I know there are those on the post who will say, "But she knew the consequences of sexual activity, and should not have had sex in the first place if she could not afford to have a baby." Agreed. But, that will not happen until the human race is extinct, it just won't. So the question is not hypothetical, but rather, what do we do with the pregnancy NOW?
Thoughts?
42. farmer Tom said the following at 2:08 PM on Nov 5:
Louise,
I have compared the high priestess of feminism, a woman of less than stellar moral character, to one of the most wicked women in history. If you don't like the comparison, Prove me wrong.
Hillary Clinton champions for a wicked and perverse practice of killing unborn children, just as Jezebel did in her day. The similarities are too close to ignore.
43. Matt C. said the following at 3:37 PM on Nov 5:
Kit, regarding your thoughts:
I think more accessible health care would make only a negligable difference. Any program likely to be passed would include financial support for abortions, so you'd be lowering the cost of both alternatives (abortion & adoption) at the same time. Furthermore, adoption carries with it "costs" beyond abortion that no government program could ever reduce(the cost of everyone knowing you messed up when your pregnancy becomes obvious, the time it takes to make many trips to the doctor vs two, the fact that pregnancy is rather annoying when you don't have anything to look forward to, etc).
The bigger point that you miss, however, is the nature of humans and temptation. Even if you could reduce the temptation somehow, it's human nature to try and trick ourselves to make our temptations appear irresistable even when they aren't in order to excuse ourselves for giving into them. A reduction in the temptation would be irrelevant to most people who are already self-deceived enough to say, say "murdering my baby is a financial necessity" under any circumstances at all.
44. Matt C. said the following at 3:45 PM on Nov 5:
Regarding name-calling, I think it's important to remind everyone that Jesus called people names fairly regularly. "Hypocrite", "brood of vipers", "white-washed tombs",etc aren't exactly complimentary. If you call name-calling as such a sin, you're pronouncing Jesus to be a sinner. While I think comparing Senator Clinton and Jezebel is a small stretch, making a historical allusion to a notorious figure is rather tame compared to much of what Jesus said.
Perhaps a more fruitful discussion would concern when and how name-calling is appropriate and what level of respect should be always afforded to our representatives.
45. obewan said the following at 8:30 AM on Nov 12:
If the evangelicals cannot get their act together for the primary, and if they split off to a third party, she has basically won the election. If the want a pro-life president they really need to take a close look at Romney. So what if he is Mormon. We are not electing a pastor. Otherwise, we better get ready for Hillary. Sadly, Pat Robertson has caved and endorsed Giuliani!
46. Justin said the following at 10:09 AM on Nov 12:
I don't understand why the pro-life community doesn't get behind Huckabee? He doesn't have the money to win, but on the issues, he's pretty good.