by Mry KochanPaul Kengor, author of spiritual biographies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, is a professor of political science at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania. His new book, God and Hillary Clinton, traces the upbringing and spiritual path of the woman who has come closest to the highest office in the United States. Kengor attempts to understand how her faith impacts her politics and her electability — a grave concern to faithful Catholics and other pro-lifers given Clinton’s staunch support of abortion. From a purely numerical standpoint, it is hard to argue with the contention that Catholics determine a great deal of the electoral politics in this country. Thus, whether Hillary Clinton attracts or repels Catholic voters may well determine whether she becomes the next president, and upon that question hinges the lives of millions of unborn human beings here and abroad.
Mary Kochan: Why should a Catholic care about the faith of Hillary Clinton, and why should a 
Catholic read your book?
Kengor: Because polls show that Hillary Clinton is the leading candidate from both parties to become president of the United States, and she is counting on the votes of Catholics to make that happen. Very importantly, she is counting not merely on nominal Catholics, and Cafeteria Catholics, but she is actually depending on orthodox Catholics in 2008 — even many pro-life Catholics. Hillary Clinton knows that she has so-called “progressive” Catholics in the bag. If you’re a Catholic who supports legalized abortion and believes that priests should marry, and who voted for Al Gore and John Kerry, and would even vote for Ted Kennedy for president, Hillary Clinton knows she has your vote. Her challenge is to win the Catholics who populate the confessionals, the 30-somethings with a bunch of kids, who don’t stare at their watch and head for the doors right after they’ve received Holy Communion.
Frankly, her challenge, and her carefully orchestrated strategy, is to win the kind of faithful Catholics who daily visit CatholicExchange.com.
It is in the best interests of Catholics reading this interview to take the time to read my book, so they know how and why Hillary is targeting them. If you don’t want to spend the money to buy my book, that’s fine — go to the library and borrow it. But read it.
Mary Kochan: When you say that she wants to win Catholics, what, precisely, do you mean — by how much? Two-thirds of Catholics? Three-fourths?
Kengor: That’s what makes this so interesting. Hillary Clinton understands that she needs merely a slim majority of Catholics. To be exact, she simply needs to flip George W. Bush’s historic margin of a small 51 to 48% Catholic majority in 2004. That’s all she needs. The difference is modest but absolutely decisive in these narrow elections.
Here are some hard numbers from the November 2004 presidential race, drawn from CNN exit polling: 27% of those who voted were Catholic. They voted for Bush over Kerry by 51 to 48%. In other words, they mirrored the popular vote — which was also 51 to 48% — to the exact percentage.
John Kerry, a Catholic, lost the Catholic vote to Bush, a Protestant, by at least a million. A Catholic with a major party nomination traditionally would have won the Catholic vote by several million. Decades earlier, another Democratic senator from Massachusetts with the initials “JFK” — John F. Kennedy — won an extremely close election because he overwhelmingly took the Catholic vote. The numbers diverge more sharply when one considers devout Catholics compared to those who find their way to church only for weddings and Christmas: Catholics who attend Mass weekly voted for Bush by 55% to 44%, a startling religious rejection of John Kerry.
And those are national figures. The breakdown among states — which settle the Electoral College — was most interesting: Bush remained close to Kerry in Pennsylvania, a state with millions of pro-life Catholic Democrats, which went for Kerry 52 to 48%, in large part because Bush carried Pennsylvania Catholics who go to Mass weekly by 52 to 48%. Most impressive, Catholics played a key role in Florida and Ohio, the two states watched mostly close in 2000 and 2004, respectively, and the two that were called late and made the decisive Electoral College difference for Bush. In Florida, Catholics comprised 28% of voters, and went for Bush 57 to 42%. In Ohio, they made up 26% and went to Bush 55 to 44%. The margin was even wider for Catholics who attend Mass weekly: In Florida, they went Bush by almost two to one, 66 to 34%, and in Ohio they supported Bush by 65 to 35%. The numbers were even more strongly in Bush’s favor when abortion was added to the mix, where Bush won by margins of almost four to one. For example, those voters in 2004 who said abortion should be “always illegal” cast a ballot for Bush by 77 to 22 percent.
It was pro-life Catholics that defeated the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. Hillary Clinton knows that, and she knows that she needs their votes in 2008.
Mary Kochan: What is her biggest obstacle in attracting those Catholics?
Kengor: Abortion. It’s not simply that she supports legalized abortion. Hillary Clinton’s problem is that she is fanatical on the abortion issue. She is far and away the most extreme presidential candidate this country has ever seen on the abortion issue. She may be to the left of the president of Planned Parenthood on abortion.
She repeats the liberal mantra about how she wants abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare,” but the fact is that there is not a single piece of pro-life legislation that she has been willing to support, including initiatives that would help make abortion rare, while keeping it legal. To cite just one example, she has voted against federal funding for ultrasound machines in abortion clinics — which have the effect of persuading women to not follow through with an abortion — and in one speech to NARAL in January 2004 demonized pro-lifers who support this. Keep in mind that this is a woman who supports government funding for anything and everything involving healthcare, and especially for women’s healthcare. She makes an exception here. She opposes any legislation that goes against the wishes of the abortion industry.
Mary Kochan: Are Catholics generally aware of her voting record on these life issues?
Kengor: Some Catholics are aware of her record, and those are the ones who generally conclude that electing her would be Armageddon for the Culture of Life.
What I’m surprised by are the pro-life Catholics who know her record but nonetheless justify supporting her. The most high-profile example I’ve seen is Anne Rice, the best-selling fiction author and recent convert to Catholicism. Rice is pro-life but has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.
Mary Kochan: You believe that Anne Rice and those Catholics who think this way are misguided?
Kengor: You bet. They should listen to the words of Hillary Clinton’s longtime OB-GYN in Arkansas, Dr. William F. Harrison, who is one of the nation’s leading abortion doctors, having done about 20,000 abortions. I interviewed him at length for the book. He was extremely gracious in the time he gave me, and was extraordinarily candid. When asked if he would expect Hillary to change George W. Bush’s pro-life policies, Harrison exclaimed: “Oh, absolutely…. I hope to God she does.” Though into his seventies, Harrison does not want to slow his rate of activity at his Fayetteville Women’s Clinic; he plans to continue to perform about 1,200 abortions per year.
The abortion industry is placing great faith in Hillary Clinton. They see her election as a huge boon for their profits. They fear the advancement of the pro-life cause, especially on the U.S. Supreme Court. If millions of moms choose life instead of death in their clinics, that would be devastating for the abortion business.
Mary Kochan: You say that Mother Teresa was especially concerned about Hillary on the abortion issue.
Kengor: She and Pope John Paul II did all they could to try to convince both Hillary and Bill Clinton to soften their positions on abortion, especially partial-birth abortion. They knew that Hillary in particular views legalized abortion as sacred ground. She has developed a deep, dogmatic attachment to abortion; it is truly her crusade.
I have a full chapter in the book on Hillary and Mother and John Paul II, with example after example of the two of them pressing Mrs. Clinton on abortion. Here is a snapshot of one memorable, telling case:
In February 1994, Mother Teresa was the keynote at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC. She held nothing back. She spoke forcefully and courageously on abortion, calling it murder. All the Washington dignitaries were there. Among them were the Clintons and the Gores, who sat closest to the platform where Mother Teresa delivered this brave message to those who needed to hear it the most.
At probably the boldest moment of her speech, Mother Teresa stated: “I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because Jesus said, ‘If you receive a little child, you receive me.’ So every abortion is the denial of receiving Jesus, the neglect of receiving Jesus.” With that, the pro-lifers in the crowd erupted into applause, prompting a long standing ovation by the entire floor. Everyone in the room was on their feet applauding — except for the Clintons and the Gores, who sat in stone, cold silence. Keep in mind that the Clintons and Gores all maintain that they personally oppose abortion and want it to be rare.
Their reaction outraged many of those in attendance. One of them told me: “It was an outrage, an abomination, very rude. Mrs. Clinton in particular just sat there.”
But that was nothing compared to the Twilight Zone moment that followed. In commenting on Mother’s remarks, Hillary must have made Mother think that a miracle had been performed when she began, “I have always believed that Christ wanted us to be joyous, to look at the face of Creation and to know that there was more joy than any of us could imagine.” As the Lady from Calcutta held her breath, however, she was severely disappointed, as Mrs. Clinton did what she always does with the Gospel of Jesus Christ: confine it to class economics, and exclude the unborn. Hillary continued: “Or as Mother Teresa told us this morning, to see the joy on the face of a homeless beggar, who is picked up off the street.”
Hillary’s remarks were an uncanny demonstration of ignoring the obvious. Mother came to present a major moral message on abortion — period. She did just that, in an unmistakable, unforgettable way that stunned the entire audience, including the Clintons. And then, after that, Mrs. Clinton ignored the entire message in her follow-up remarks. Not only did she ignore it, but she shoe-horned it into a way that worked for her: she carefully lifted a smaller item from Mother’s address, one that she liked, removed it fully out of context, and inserted it into an entirely separate political purpose — for that old-time Religious Left “social justice.” It was surreal.
A common criticism of liberals by conservatives is that liberals often invent their own reality. That was precisely what Mrs. Clinton had done here. Mother Teresa must have been mystified by that response.
By the way, it was not like Mrs. Clinton didn’t get the point. She later wrote in her memoirs: “She [Mother Teresa] had just delivered a speech against abortion.” In fact, she also noted that Mother Teresa kindly but directly got in her face: “[S]he wanted to talk to me,” said Hillary. “Mother Teresa was unerringly direct. She disagreed with my views on a woman’s right to choose and told me so.”
Hillary understood Mother’s message, but she had her own political sermon to deliver. And Mother’s words would work nicely, Hillary felt — so long as they could be given a completely new meaning.
Actually, her behavior was fully reflective of the customary butchering of words by the abortion movement. They redefine a baby in the womb as a “choice” or as a “woman’s health” issue. They call the targeted killing of an unwanted twin in the womb a “selective reduction.” So, this is in keeping with that (unholy) spirit.
Mary Kochan: Last question: Will Hillary Clinton be our next president?
Kengor: She will definitely be the Democratic Party nominee for president. Whether she becomes our next president is up to Catholics. This next election will depend on how Catholics vote.
