there is a big difference between an ACTIVE pro-choice candidate, and someone who would simply maintain the status quo regarding abortion. let's face it, we elected Reagan to two terms, Bush 41 once, Bush 43 2 times, and added a republican congress since 1994 - the ball on abortion has moved only slightly to the right on things like partial birth and parental notification. no big changes.
in light of that, what sense does it make to nominate an unkonwn purist on abortion, and risk electing Hillary, who we all know full well will be ACTIVELY pro-abortion.
again, our basic problem is that we don't have a well known candidate for 2008, that meets everyone's conservative credentials.
Like my dad says, a pig in a dress is still a pig!
Hillary, get over yourself!