And if she's at the top of the ticket, she will be hurting the chances of Dems in Congressional elections - like Mark Warner in VA to replace retiring John Warner.

Yeah, this is true. More worrisome is that I think she can probably win in '08 due to the weakness of the GOP field, but is almost certain to lose in '12.

Mark Warner in VA to replace retiring John Warner

More nepotism...

Well put. And there is no difference between Hillary and Obama (who is a well-known anti-christ) on a lot of these issues. Kucinich is probably the best candidate out there, but Edwards is the best among the "big 3".

The Democrats are probably going to take the presidency and widen their lead in both houses of Congress

Probably, but it's definitely not a given. That being the case, I think Clinton has the best chance of winning the general election out of any of the Democratic candidates.

I think Clinton has the best chance of winning the general election

Really? I'm curious why. She seems to me to be the one candidate who could really rally GOP turnout.

I only say it because she is outpolling the other Democrats. It does seem like the GOP would falling over each other to vote against her, and I've talked to too many registered Democrats who've said they would rather vote GOP than for her. It just seems that polls which capture the great undecided middle always sway her way, particularly against the current crop of GOP candidates.

registered Democrats who've said they would rather vote GOP than for her

Well now, that's just nutty.

Hillary will be the nominee, and I, at least, will be working round the clock for her come fall '08. And she'll win, and she'll be as awful as we expect ... and far better than the alternative.

Well, nobody is going to be the nominee until people vote on it, which doesn't happen for several months yet. This time four years ago, Howard Dean was leading and Joe Lieberman was running even with John Kerry. Most people have only just started paying any attention to the race.

So I'm holding out hope that she's mostly coasting on name recognition right now.

Damn, your listing all she supports, defends, and opposes almost had me liking her.......

Seriously, opposed to banning late-term abortions is a problem? On what possible moral grounds?

So I'm holding out hope that she's mostly coasting on name recognition right now.

So am I.........

Oops,

Opposed to banning late-term abortions is a problems? On what possible moral grounds?

Okay, (at the risk of being banned for serious typos) support(ing) a ban on late term abortions is a problem? On what possible moral grounds?

Practical grounds. You have to make an exception for when the procedure is deemed necessary for the health of the mother, yes? Typically this will happen in an emergency situation, so the doctor can't get a court review before performing the operation without further endangering the life of the mother. You could require a court review after the fact, but that may make doctors reluctant to perform the procedure even when the mother's life is in danger.

dob...

Straw man. The percentage of late-term abortions done "for the health of the mother" is infinitesimal, and when legitimately done for that reason, exceptions can be made. That small percentage is not grounds, morally or legally, for making all late-term abortions legal.

Obama (who is a well-known anti-christ)

Really? Well-known as such by whom? It seems to me that other than Kucinich (who, bless his heart, has a snowball's chance in hell) that Obama has at least as much to offer as any of the rest of them. People talk about his inexperience with foreign policy, yada yada. Maybe a little inexperience could help our country win back a modicum of its self-respect.

Exceptions can be made?

Dude. Talk about your creepy passive constructions.

She is supported by Robert Murdoch and is one of FoxNews' annointed candidates.

Heil Hillary!

Steph -- that is a reference to the Apostropher's longest-ever comments thread, which is full of rank bullshit about Obama being the antichrist from people who are not "Fundamentalist Christian" so much as they are "Loony".

16 -- can you show evidence that the vast majority of late-term abortions are not performed in situations which are legitimately about danger to the mother? Every study of the matter I have seen has indicated the reverse. Having a late-term abortion is seriously unpleasant and not the kind of thing embarked upon on a whim.

can you show evidence

Actually, yes, though the data are twenty years old, so I'm not certain what the current numbers are. It has become vastly more difficult to find doctors who will perform late-term abortions, though, so I imagine the percentage for medical reasons is much higher now than it was in the late eighties. But that's neither here nor there; we don't make laws on moral grounds, we make them on legal grounds. This is one of the areas where I line up with the libertarians. The rights of the mother to make her own medical decisions supercede those of a fetus, which is afforded *no other rights whatsoever* under the Constitution.

20: Obama Antichrist.

Obama Antichrist

No he's NOT, apo!

And he's not Persian either!

At some point between unimplanted blob of cells and fully formed baby at 9 months, a human fetus is a human being who deserves some kind of protection with human rights. Having watched a number of preemies grow up to be happy and healthy children, this point is probably well before 9 months.

But...since forceful eviction from private property is also a right, at one point the fetus' right to life conflicts with the mother's right to evict.

I haven't a clue about where to draw the line here, try as I might. Not that I would even want to, really.

My humble opinion is that Roe Vs. Wade did a very poor job of addressing these questions, doing so very arbitrarily and overemphasizing the 4th and 14th amendments at the expense of the 9th and 10th.

Probably this is a matter that belongs to the indvidual states and their local moral sensibilities. That is, New York has a very different view on this matter than Utah, and this should probably be respected according the to principles of federalism.

On the other hand, what the hell do I know.

Surely I've broken some anti-liberal taboo here and said things which are going to get me flamed. Oh well. I understand that the "Right to Choose" [cue angelic voices with the heavens opening up] is one of those sacred cows that you're just not allowed to disagree with in any way shape or form or face banishment to a Red State Hell full of beer bellied phillistines who pronounce "nookyoulahr" and go out partying wearing a sheet and a hood. Yes I know. Question that sacred cow and then you become the Other.

I haven't a clue about where to draw the line here, try as I might. Not that I would even want to, really.

See, we basically agree here, even though I know our personal views on abortion differ. And it's one of those issues where reasonable people are going to disagree (not that I'm accusing you of reasonableness <wink>). This is one of those times, though, when I find it's helpful to reiterate that for every right we afford, there will always be people who exercise that right in a way we find irresponsible or offensive.

While I have a certain sympathy for the federalist argument here, ultimately it fails (for me) along the same lines that similar prior arguments for segregation fail. Y'know, that 1950s Alabama just had a different view on the matter than Massachusetts did. Until we decide that fetuses are citizens with the attendant rights, allowing a state to place the rights of a fetus over the rights of an existing person is allowing states to create a class of sub-citizens.

apo, sounds like you're in favor of a strong federal government, one that imposes uniform laws on abortions. Do you realize that this is the same central government that has brought us a federal ban on partial-birth abortions, trumped all state laws that permit any use of marijuana (even the commercial growing of hemp) and brought us not only a disastrous "war on drugs" but a war on civil liberties via the "endless war" on terrorism?

The best way to rope this in is for the Dems to realize that a strong central state is not the friend, but the chief enemy of liberty.

One would think that you guys would realize this, especially after the past six years.

one that imposes uniform laws on abortions

By not making laws about abortions? If you say so, dude.

a strong central state is not the friend, but the chief enemy of liberty

Tell it to blacks in the South, Tom.

Also, something about babies and bathwater.

I'm the one for keeping the babies but throwing out the bathwater. It's easy to distinguish between intervention by the Court to ban invidious racial discrimination (Brown v. Board) and stepping in regulate abortion restrictions (Roe. v. Wade).

The Supreme Court involvement in the latter is a federalization of criminal law and has provided the basis for Congress to finally act independently to ban partial-birth abortions. In my view, that federal law should have been overturned on the grounds that Congress lacks power under a federal system to overrule the states on these matters (on the basis of flimsy Commerce Clause arguments) - the same reason that the marijuana decisions were wrong. As has been noted elsewhere, the Court and Congress are both involved in the federalization of abortion law.

No one's talking about sanctioning state discrimination, apo. But it is clear that the federal government is a growing threat to our liberty, as are the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" that it pushes as a way to gain both more physical control over us and access to our pocketbooks. Don't you see this?

Supreme Court involvement in the latter is a federalization of criminal law

So was desegregation. This is not a hard call. Turning abortion back over to the states will result in more women being denied the right to make decisions over their own bodily integrity and being coerced to carry babies they don't want. No matter how you slice it, that is not more freedom.

You are starting from the position that centralized government is a priori bad. We just don't agree on that, and we won't. Government is a tool. It can be used for good or for ill. If you restrict the latter, you also restrict the former. There are plenty of examples around the world of minimal government. Very few of them are places anybody wants to go.

No one's talking about sanctioning state discrimination

Not from the South, are you?

You are starting from the position that centralized government is a priori bad.

No, I'm not. I'm asking for a focus on what makes government GOOD, and how government can go WRONG. I start from the understanding that our Founding Fathers had when they decided to cut free from King George and the bonds of affection with their homeland and start a new country with limited government - and I'm looking at the ruin that has been steadily purchased as corporations and elites were successful in growing and controlling the state.

I think desegregation and abortion are distinguishable, but in either case, you are buying a certain growth in the federal government. The gains in freedom may be worth it in these cases, but there are still good reasons to wish to see a greater respect for arguments for a less-sweeping Commerce Clause and for a smaller federal government - like the war on drugs, for example.

No, I'm not from the South, but from the Pacific Northwest with many years in the Northeast as well as Tokyo.

and I'm looking at the ruin that has been steadily purchased as corporations and elites were successful in growing and controlling the state.

I don't see how reducing the power of government to rein in corporations and elites will increase anyone's freedom except that of corporations and elites. Do you honestly think that the New Deal, for example, was foisted on the hapless masses by corporations and elites?

M/M: I think that corporations and elites certainly played a role in bringing us the New Deal (see this Wiki article, for example), but that's hardly all, is it? Besides the growth of the military-industrial complex, which has brought us blowback and other sorrows of empire that Chalmers Johnson writes about and has successfully found a new existential enemy in "terrorism", we have a steady growth in the political power of large corporations and in their ability to use federal laws and regulations to defend their competitive positions and to obtain various sweet deals from government.

I don't see how reducing the power of government to rein in corporations and elites will increase anyone's freedom except that of corporations and elites.
Good point; I don't see how either. I haven't suggested that we need reduce the power of government to rein in corporations and elites, but that "bigger government" frequently simply compounds the problem.

However, there are good arguments to be made for paring back regulations at the federal level and to rely on more efforts at the state level, where there are 50+ regulators that have to be captureed rather than one. The primary driver for reform in securities markets recently has been New York, for example, not the SEC.