“I am going to try to be so persuasive, so that those of you who are still wavering . . . will suddenly come to the conclusion — a light beam will shine through — will light you up — and you will experience an epiphany — ‘I have to vote for Mike Huckabee!’ “
Well actually this explicit religious appeal was made by Barack Obama. But as Deal Hudson referenced this won’t set the theocracy watch types into any kind of frenzy. Well I already had a epiphany with Barack when Gerald Augustinus aptly wrote "That he’s more pro-abortion than Planned Parenthood, …" A nice bright light beam powered by a 100 watt incandescent bulb no less shined through since that it was good true rhetoric does.
I found it rather strange with Hillary’s push calls challenging Obama’s abortion record. Let them get into a who is more pro-abortion fight. While it might help them in the primaries this type of debate would be poison in the General Election since it nulls out all of those references about wanting abortion to be rare, etc. Hillary voted in favor of the Born Alive Infants Act while Obama just voted "present" on a similar bill in the Illinois version of the act.
One thing about the abortion debate in politics today is what candidates can get away with saying. They are allowed to say things that are so incoherent that it would give debate teams strokes and yet interviewers will sit there like they just said something sane and rational.
For example I saw an interview where Obama said that abortion is a moral question, but that we should trust women to make the right decision. Why don’t we trust women when it comes to murder of their spouses or boyfriends? If something is a moral question it is objective instead of being subjective. If in fact if we can just trust women to make the right decision on a issues, then why can’t we just trust men on other issues. This logic leads in fact to the idea that we don’t really need laws in the first place since we should just trust people to do the good.
In a sane world the interviewer would have dropped his jaw in disbelief at such an answer. A rational interviewer would have followed up asking why it was a moral questions and if this moral question is seen as murder why would it be left up to an individual within a gender group to make it?