It is sensitive to the extent I do not want federal law killing women. Feelings on that should not depend on whether one is directly affected. How many teenaged girls died bearing your children to make YOU so invested in the issue? It is rather backward to say personal involvement makes someones opinion less rather than more relevant; it may not be objective, but is manifestly relevant.


Saying her husbands nomination was the first time IN HER LIFE she was proud of her country is not writing off all of US history. Since she probably does not remember the moon landing well (she was only 5 at the time,) I sympathize with her position: What has America done to make anyone proud since then? Bankrupt the Soviet Union? It was going bankrupt whatever we did; we just sped up the clock at the cost of bankrupting ourselves into the bargain. From <$1 trillion federal debt to $12 trillion in 30 years of Reaganomics, despite a reprieve under Clinton, Dole and Gingrich.

Here is the thing though: Michelle Obama does not write, pass nor sign federal laws. When a legislator makes a policy statement to the press during a campaign, it is not "off the cuff," or should not be. Legislators making indefensible factually false policy statements during an election face electoral consequences. We cannot all promise to decrease tax revenue $5 trillion, increase military spending $2 trillion AND erase a $1 trillion federal deficit. Apparently -1-5-2=0; it is a wonder Bains companies stayed in busin—oh... right....


You make a fine argument against abortion as "retroactive birth control" (though pro-lifers opposing PROACTIVE birth control just as strongly undermines it.) Yet that is not the debate. The question is not "should we allow abortion on demand, or only to save womens lives and possibly for rape victims?" That is a fair reasonable debate, but when seemingly the entire GOP Congressional delegation (VP, and, until a few months ago, presidential nominee) demand a federal law against abortion EVEN for rape victims, in some cases even for women who will die without abortion, we are not debating "no fault" abortion: We are debating whether federal law should kill women to satisfy the Republican Partys warped notion of "morality."


Palins problem was prating about the GOPs "Christian family values" while her unwed teen daughter dropped out of HS because pregnant by a man she never married. Practice what you preach or STFU, Sarah. The relevance of Duckworths last campaign to her current one is just what I said: I thought no one could be more ignorantly and hypocritically insensitive than a career civilian opponent accusing a double amputee veteran of cowardice, but Walsh found a way.


She supports increased federal education support instead of Bushs "we are raising your standards you were not meeting and cutting your funding to meet them."

She supports VA medical care and treatment, rather than sending soldiers off to injury or death then leaving them and their families to twist in the wind.

She supports federal healthcare availability to kids, the elderly and the poor and, obviously, is pro-choice.

That the Republicans she has run against are miserable excuses for human beings is just icing on the cake.


It is called "full disclosure."


Their lives are NO price for YOU to pay: THEY pay it instead, and assuredly feel differentlly. However, effective exceptions do not "endanger the whole cause." Ya'll get a lot of traction opposing "no fault" abortion on demand, and justifiably. The Republican Party freaking VOLUNTEERED to deny abortions for rape victims, even to save womens lives. No one put a gun to these Congressmens heads and coerced those positions, so it is safe to say they are sincere.


Your closing argument is "allowing women civil rights that save their lives justifies pro-lifers murdering doctors"? Could you put that on a billboard? Please?