Elizabeth Edwards would make a wonderful First Lady.

What a great asset to that campaign.

Just keep her out of the gated communities!

So would Bill

HP, Betty, Kevin - fully agree.

Bill Clinton would think Elizabeth Edwards would make a wonderful first lady??????  Kevin, better check your blog LOL.

Yes Kevin, so would Bill.

That is sick. Abortion hurts women.

She certainly is a class act.

First Lady?  I thought she was running for President.  She sure has more, and better, things to say then her husband.  THe going gets tough, and out comes Liz.

LIZ, Abortion HELPS women. None of your biz liz!

DAMN cancer.  I would get out and canvass and leaflet and stuff envelopes and all that grunt work if Elizabeth Edwards were running for president.

Finally, come on mark and chuck. you let Politico scoop you.pretty boy Romney pays 300 dollars for hair and makeup. Let's see some press on this guys. how about half as much coverage at least as Edwards?

I see the people hurting in this country.the middle class by and large has been virtually destroyed by business(oil,health care and insurance)with bush's concept of anything goes and illegal imigration. there may be some jobs Americans won't do but if you pay a decent wage as the Bible says to, then Americans would do the job!

Before everyone starts drooling over themselves (oops, too late) when talking about what a wonderful and compassionate woman Mrs. Edwards is and the work she is doing for Planned Parenthood, here's a quote or two from Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization ... may I suggest you all do a little more reading on the history of the organization, followed perhaps by a little soul searching.

"Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

Well ... we've certainly progressed haven't we ... now we don't have to have a cause (regardless of how sick it might be) ... it's degenerated to a simple matter of convenience!  Ladies ... rape, incest, and dangers to health aside ... don't you really think that pro-choice should mean deciding whether or not you want to have a child BEFORE YOU HAVE SEX with someone.

ohhh, and what would have become of people like Itzhak Perlman, Franklin Roosevelt, Ludwig von Beethoven, Marla Runyan, Stephen Hawking, Katherine Hepburn, Louis Braille (and the list goes on) if Ms. Sanger and people like her before and after, had their way?!

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

Well ... you all have certainly lived up to that challenge ... 40 MILLION aborted BABIES since 1973 can attest to that fact!

The number of abortions ran highest in the years 1985 - 1990 ... given the age of many of you adding your comments to this string ... perhaps you all should thank God that you're alive to do it!

DJ no need to go to the dark ages to keep us in the dark ages. Thank christ for Margret Sanger and all her GOOD work.
AN abortion a day keeps welfare away. Now we would have 40,0000 more single mothers with unwanted kids on welfare, or many more than 40 mil.
I thank no one for being unwanted!

Great comments on Margaret Sanger and the purpose of Planned Parenthood.  An organization whose primary purpose is to use taxpayer money to destroy a nation's people is a blight on society.  It's a shame that many politicians fail to oppose this group.  Now that science has shown that the unborn is actually alive and more than just "a blob of tissue" (the previous mantra that Planned Parenthood repeated in efforts to squash the truth), the organization tries to frame its position in terms of "rights."  Of course this sounds appealing, since nobody likes to hear that their "rights" are being restricted.  The sad fact is that no rights are extended to the unborn child.  Rather than Edwards, we should applaud those who are brave enough to oppose the efforts of Planned Parenthood to silence the unborn.

I've said all along that if H. Clinton is the D nominee, we will have a republican win the general in 08.

My reasoning for this is illustrated by
DJ, Schenectady NY (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:55 PM)

The anti-abortion crowd is one of 3 of the strongest voting blocks in the country. If they are this upset about Ms. Edwards, imagine what they will say about Ms. Clinton.

BTW - I am anti-abortion as well. I don't, however, make that my voting litmus test. I don't favor changing the law. I choose to influence and move people about this issue through personal one-on-one contact. I've volunteered to take the children who would have been aborted. I choose to live my faith rather than legislate it.

I do NOT want a republican to win the general elections (unless, by some miracle, Ron Paul is the R-nominee). If we don't do something to keep Ms. Clinton off the ballot in 08, however, we will lose this election. IMHO.

The average length of time for someone to be on welfare is two years. Because something MAY happen in a child's future (i.e. needing welfare for awhile), is not a good reason to end that child's life. Those things are external circumstances which are subject to change. My son was born into the same set of circumstances; he has never been in trouble and is in graduate school now. The people Margaret Sanger and other eugenicists thought of as unfit, human weeds, and defectives were mainly poor who did not have the same opportunities in life. Once given an opportunity to succeed their offspring are no different that mainstream America. Too bad that H P Boston is no more enlightened today than the eugenicists were back in 1920-1930s. It is really sad to see such contempt human life. Those 40 million babies could have ended up in the homes of infertile couples who are eager to have a baby and resort to overseas adoptions or risky treatments for one.

I have to agree with my Independent friend from Texas.  I agree that anti-abortion / pro-life folks are a huge voting block, and I'd venture to guess that one of the other two is the anti-anything to do with gun control folks.  The point is that for a whole lot of folks in this country, issues like abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, etc., are the only thing that matters when it comes to voting.  I imagine that immigration related issues will have a similar effect this time around.  From what I can tell, there are many folks who would much prefer to vote for a democrat over a republican, unless it's Hilary Clinton.  So many people hate her so much, for whatever reason (some real and some imagined) that they'll vote for a republican rather than for her.  Additionally, many people have been voting for republican candidates based solely on these issues, as well as "family" issues, or "morality" issues, while other issues such as economic policies, foreign policy, etc., mean nothing to them.  Lastly, it's not as important what candidates really believe, or really intend to do, it's what these voters have been told and believe.  Actual truth counts for nothing, it's all about "perception management".  Of course, this is just my opinion.

DJ, Schenectady:
Your accertion that birth control is a means to “weed out the defectives” is ludacris.  I don’t care where you did your research.  If an unfertalized egg is shed by the female body there is no special selection occuring.  The female body routinely sheds an unfertalized egg each month during the menstrual cycle, this is its natural process.  Contraceptive methods merely prevent the fertilization of the female "egg" by the male "sperm".  

Only after the fertilazation of and egg does the embryonic developement begin. It's impossible to "weed out defectives" as you say, if there is no embryo. Further on that topic, all eggs present during sexual intercourse are involved in fertilization prevention.  There is no special way to target certain “defectives” and prevent only them from being fertilized. A birth control pill, a condom, an IUD, etc. do not discriminate against or target certain eggs while letting sperm get to all the other eggs.

Birth control is and has been for centuries a method of preventing the fertilization of the female "egg" by the male "sperm".   Egyptian women used a vaginal suppository, Asian women used oiled paper as a cervical cap, Europeans used beeswax for the same purpose, and around the 17th century the condom showed up.

People are going to have sex, that’s a given.  Wouldn’t you rather they do it as safely as possible?  In my opinion education is the best method of reducing the number of abortions performed in our country.  People who wish to force their opinions and values on others hinder access to that education and thus, increase the demand for such services.  It sucks but it is what it is.

BTW: Planned Parenthood is an organization on government welfare. Let's see them get off of government handouts. One-third of their $800,000,000 budget comes from our tax dollars (see their annual reports), yet they complain about the $30 million that goes to abstinence only programs or crisis pregnancy centers. Another third of Planned Parenthood's budget comes from abortion income.    

Couldn't agree with you more Scott in south Texas.  Well said.

Elizabeth Edwards integrity and grace would be an asset in the White House.

Sadly, the Democrats don't defend the unborn children of America, and pander to the rich, powerful, special interests who run the Democratic party and benefit from abortions

Sadly, the Democrats don't defend the unborn children of America, and pander to the rich, powerful, special interests who run the Democratic party and benefit from abortions

Tim, are you serious? "...the rich. powerful, special interests who run the Democratic party" ????
Back to reality for a moment. Elizabeth is a lady and would be a great First Lady!

Liz at a Planned Parenthood meting.
How dare she.
According to the GOP only old rich white guys should have a say in this matter.

Tim sheen, Wakefield, MA (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:43 PM)

I am not a democrat. I am a "fallen away" Republican. One of the reasons for that is the scorched earth policy of the RNC for "winning is everything". Another is that the current administration while (maybe) sympathetic to the unborn is definitely NOT sympathetic to the "born".

They don't care about anyone on earth except for a few privileged persons. So - given a choice between the unborn and sacrificing people on the alter of oil and the desire for a unitary presidency, I'll choose to go with protecting those of us who made through the birth canal.

TSM Sacramento ... if you happen to visit this string ... please check my post again.  Abortion as a means to 'weed out defectives' was neither my assertion NOR is it my belief!  As the manager of a center that provides meaningful employment opportunities for developmentally disabled adults, nothing in fact could be further than the truth.  I was, instead, quoting the founder of Planned Parenthood.

That said ... even though you misread my comments (sorry ... it's my problem with grammar not yours in comprehending!) I am relieved that there are other folks out there who also find such 'guiding principles' (it seems ludicrous to use such a term when talking about the rantings of someone like Sanger) cause for outrage!

How sad for Elizabeth Edwards...thank goodness she didn't abort her own children! I'm 24 years old, female, and PRO-LIFE. I begin to judge my Political candidates (state and federal, anyway) by whether or not they support abortion (privately and publicly). If they do, they are crossed off of the list. If they don't, they stay.

I believe you can judge the character of an individual by how they treat the weakest members of our society. They may not be perfect, but I know they have integrity. So far, I only see one of the Republican viable candidates as having integreity...Fred Thompson, if he runs.
I wish Alan Keyes would run and be our next President!

Sara M, Florida (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:16 PM)

First: I repeat - I am anti-abortion.

Second: Are you seriously saying that just because a candidate says s/he is anti-abortion, that you will vote for them on that basis alone? Is that what you are saying?

Third: to quote Cal Thomas  - "We lost the abortion battle. We have to move on."

Fourth: Your position is "to hell with all those people who dying needlessly in Iraq because this absolute dufus of a President is anti-abortion so he deserves your support"? Haven't you yet realized that these people LIE.

Which brings me to my last point: If you think your boy Fred is really anti-abortion, I suggest you look a little deeper into that bit of fiction. What he is is willing to SAY that he is anti-abortion. That's ok with you right? He doesn't have to DO anything - just say it. Whereas people who are willing to be truthful and say that they support, in their language not mine, "a woman's right to choose", does the same "nothing" that Freddie boy will do BUT will also help rebuild our country from the disaster currently holding office in the WH are not worthy of your vote?

Sorry - like I said in an earlier post - if it comes down to someone I KNOW will help protect and preserve the already living over someone who will do  NOTHING but talk about protecting the unborn - I will choose the former.

Actually I think the Edwards themselves are rich elitist.As for them pandering to planned Parenthood,Thats a large part of their base.And PP is a large organization with lot's of money.On a side note Margaret Sanger also saw abortion as a way to get rid of the minorities the left claims to love so much.Planned Parenthood also tends to act as if their above the law.For example,not reporting statutory rape in order to perform an abortion.

This is in response to DJ and JT above,
I hope that you two wrote those blogs while you were having a bad day, because otherwise I would swear that you were eductated in a rural farmhouse by your local preacher. How on earth can one bash Planned Parenthood for their use of tax dollars. Look at the other places our tax dollars go.
     More than 75% of our funds go towards the defense budget, to drop a $5 million dollar bomb on a mud hut or free up tax incentives for a large corporation to move into the state. The former house leader Trent Lott is having his insanely garish and overpirced building built in his name in his former college town of Hattiesburg, MS. They used $3 million dollars of tax payers money to build a state of the art glass staircase. When it comes to the argument over the uses of tax payers dollars along party lines, please do not bring non-for-profit organizations into the argument who are only trying to help society. Next time lets make sure we bash on how schools are a waste of tax payers money. Nobody like those kids sucking up all of the tax dollars.

90% of the comments against Margaret Sanger are men. Often the quotes are taken out of context.
"In my work in the nursing field I came in daily contact with various aspects of social conditions...
I was confronted with two classes of society.  In the first, where wealth, leisure, education are enjoyed , prevention of conception is known and "practised"....  While on the other side, where prevention of conception is not known, poverty, disease, prostitution, vagrancy, ...unemployment and the alarming increase in abortions.  I found that the mothers of this class are kept in ignorance, but are anxious and desirous of the knowledge which will prevent their bringing children into the world to die in poverty. they would face death through abortions rather than bring children into the world and compel them and compel them to spend their childhood days toiling in mills... (written 1916)Things haven't changed too much since then; I can't walk in a woman's shoes and neither can most men; we need therefore to respect their decisions no matter what.

It has been 34 years since roe vs wade and it is still a hot issue. I am pro choice, i don't preach it nor do I in gerenal talk about it because people have such strong feelings on it, and they are often unwilling or incapable of hearing any side but their own. Having said that I have two beautiful children and had never ended a pregancy nor would i unless i had to for health reasons because that is my choice. I have lived with that choice for almost eighteen years and am happy. But just because thats my choice and my life doesn't mean i am arrogrant enough to decide for everyone what is right for their life. So this issue is a non issue to me. I am more concerned with the war the rising costs of living( gas fuel etc..) than this one. My little cousin served 3 times in Iraq and my son who is almost 18 wants to go into the army so my concerns lie in that direction. I wish we could stop throwing away this nations youth on misgudied endeavors that costs more than they could ever be worth. We need to worry about education and developing tech that will improve our econ and our lives not whether we should tell the 16 yr old down the road she can't end her pregancy.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):