Editor's note. Parts Two and Three of today's edition are your chance to really help improve this daily feature and the monthly NRL News. Part Two is a re-run of a TN&V which asks you to answer this question: what is the best approach to eradicate the illiteracy that exists when it comes to abortion? Part Three is a survey that asks NRL News readers to tell me, on the one hand, what they like and would want more of in the "pro-life newspaper of record," and, on the other hand, what they don't like and would like to see less of. The email address is daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

Last night I watched with a mixture of dread and fascination as pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke to her supporters in Pennsylvania. Having just mashed rival pro-abortionist Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton looked like the cat who'd swallowed the canary, the canary's spouse, and the cage for good measure.

She'd thumped Obama by a solid ten-point margin, 55% to 45% and she was plenty happy. However, most of the cable network pundits, in the tank for Obama, did not share Clinton's buoyant mood. 

As I watched their glum faces, they reminded me of a corner man at a fight. As the results rolled in, they jumped into the ring armed with a bucket, a sponge, and a litany of reasons why Clinton should withdraw.

They told us that the "candidate of hope" had already won on a TKO: Obama has what appears to be an insuperable margin in the popular vote and among the delegates, they insisted over and over, so why doesn't Clinton just throw in the towel? But the junior senator from New York will have none of this which makes them--and their brethren in the print media--even more unhappy.

Why is this of interest to us as pro-lifers? For many reasons, but let me briefly mention two.

First, both Clinton and Obama are radically pro-abortion. Yet Clinton has enjoyed amazing success in winning the votes of Catholics. Last night, for example, she walloped Obama by 69% to 31%--a head-scratching margin of 38%.

This does not, of course, necessarily translate into a vote for Clinton in November, should she be the nominee. If you're a Democrat (only Democrats could vote in the primary yesterday) and a Catholic, you may have chosen Clinton as the lesser of two evils or simply not have known that she unswervingly toes the pro-abortion party line.

Second, once the Democrats settle on their pro-abortion nominee, they (and their army of allies in the media) will quickly turn their guns on pro-life Senator McCain. Suddenly the media's "favorite Republican" will be found to be burdened with flaws they hadn't noticed in the nearly 22 years he's been in the Senate.

There are tons of people who've watched politics longer and with far more insight than I have. Having said that, I would only add that this election is unlike anything I have witnessed in the 48 years since I first took notes on the Kennedy-Nixon debates as a high school sophomore.

Stay tuned.

Part Two
Part Three