By Dave Andrusko

Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton
You’ve no doubt heard the adage, it depends on whose ox is being gored. That is, someone will look at the same phenomenon very differently depending on whether it coincides or conflicts with their self-interest.
So the same people who have a conniption when “those people” (meaning people of orthodox religious faith) take an active part in the political process will quietly fold their hands and smile beatifically when the right (that is Left) kind of person of faith hops into the fray.
Enter the Rev. Tony Campolo. Campolo is a sociology professor emeritus at Eastern University. He is a prolific author, a man of the Evangelical left, so on occasion he is recruited to put a Christian gloss on the Democratic position on various hot-button issues.
And for those with long memories, we also recall how Campolo, along with two other “spiritual advisors,” was brought in by President Clinton in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
I mention this background by way of commenting on Campolo’s piece for the Religious News Service: “Why Christians should vote for Hillary.”
He has, as they say, a history with the Clintons.
Here are just a few of what I would describe as preposterous statements from Campolo. But let’s begin with the merely problematic.

Tony Campolo
If you believe Campolo, while first lady of Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton whipped the bureaucracy into shape? Really? According to whom?
And that promise keeping is a quality we need in a president. His evidence? Her willingness to stay married to a man accused of habitual adultery (“through better and worse,” as Campolo delicately puts it).
If you’ve read about his piece, you would have heard about Campolo’s assertion that a woman who is rabidly pro-abortion–both domestically and in her glee to export abortion to the four corners of the globe–has “a plan for cutting the abortion rate in America by at least 50 percent.”
I wonder how her soulmates at NARAL would feel about that? After all, as a senator, she had a 100% pro-abortion voting record.
By way of preface, as far as I can tell, no one but Campolo has heard of this plan, or at least this number, of even that reducing abortion is a Clinton objective. And if Clinton’s ultra-pro-abortion supporters got wind of this “plan,’ they would go apoplectic.
“Reducing” abortion is the last thing they want to happen. There is always, always, always an “unmet need,” and, besides, a goal of reducing the number of abortions would suggest that abortion is not a “good” thing, but something that ought to limited.
By the way the specifics of the “plan” is beyond our single-issue purview, but we can say a couple of things.
Campolo, who calls himself a “pro-life Democrat,” insists, “Abortions will not be ended through legislation.” But the number has already been reduced by roughly 600,00 abortions since 1990, in no small part because of legislation.
The number will be further reduced as the law serves its educational functioning–teaching the public that abortions are performed on pain-capable unborn babies and in a manner in which the baby bleeds to death as her body is torn asunder.
But, of course, what Campolo means is legislation that places limitations on abortion. His “plan” would involve a multiplicity of legislative initiatives. He says the former won’t work, the latter will, but in either case, legislation is involved.
For the next 18 months, we will hear/read/be lectured that we really don’t “understand” Hillary Clinton.
Problem is –for her and for the likes of Tony Campolo–we understand her perfectly.