I love what you two have done for this country, and most of the time we're on the same page.
But I don't agree with that opinion, and it's not getting any more traction with me through repetition.
I was brought up in NYC and I lived there during the worst of times.
It is inconceivable that if, by magic, HRC had succeeded David Dinkins in 1993 the incredible transformation of my city that took place from 1993-2001 would have occurred.
In fact, I'm quite sure that the rate of deterioration would have accelerated.
I am persuadeable that Rudy cannot be elected because his nomination would split the party, but the snapping and snarling we're seeing here haven't convinced me of that - yet.
And, without naming any names, the track record of Republican elected officials on abortion - not what they say, but what they do - has been fair to poor. That's because, IMO, they have to get elected, and the electorate's position on abortion is, "against it, but...".
I don't believe a candidate who is against it, and has an action plan that goes beyond getting Roe reversed can be even nominated, much less elected, without a moral change in the country first.
And, on top of that, someone who can be painted as running for President to initiate or to force that moral change can't be nominated or elected, either.
Moral change is something to pray for. Running the apparatus of government is something to vote for.
And, just in case this is post 10 000, here's a flag.
