People who disagree with President Bush's decision on stem cells because they want no experimentation will, I guarantee you compare it over and over and over and over about Bush 41's comment on taxes.
People who disagree because they want unlimited research on stem cells will complain that the President is still in the thrall of his right wing.
Here's what I don't understand. In football, one of the strongest attributes of a coaching staff is the ability to make half-time adjustments. In politics, once you have taken a position - no matter when you took that position, what has happened since you took that position, and how much you have learned in the interim regarding the issue about which you took that position - changing your position is seen as a sign of weakness.
My guess is, the stem cell issue looked pretty linear when Candidate Bush said he was opposed to federal funding. As he talked to more and more people, and examined it more and more closely he obviously came to the conclusion that the issue had many, many more dimensions than he had originally thought and, like a mature, intelligent individual - made the proper adjustments to his thinking.
Here's the essential difference in the way people are thinking about stem-cell research as opposed to the way they think about abortion.
Consider this: When was the last time you had a discussion regarding abortion with another adult and one of you changed the other's mind?
"Never," would be the right answer here - barring some religious conversion one way or the other.
That is because every American over the age of eleven has thought about it, considered it, heard all the variations on the theme; judged all the scientific, ethical, philosophical, and religious nuances, seen the ads on both sides, and has probably known at least one family for whom abortion was a personal - not a theoretical - issue.
Stem cell research is so new, that the edges of our thinking have not yet had a chance to harden. We are learning about the science involved; the ethics involved; the differences in thinking about it from even the strongest pro-lifers; and � and almost all of us see stem cell research as benefiting us, or someone close to us, in a very positive, very personal way.
The National Institutes of Health have put up a web page which is a primer on stem cells. You will learn
the difference, for example, between a Pluripotent cell and a Totipotent cell. To see the link go to the
Secret Decoder Ring page.
In order for publisher Alfred A. Knopf to make money, some reports suggest that the $10-12 million advance will require that the Clinton book sell between three and four million copies. In order to sell 3.5 million books, it better have a title more compelling than: "Bill Clinton: A Memoir."
This is the book which, we are told, Bill Clinton will write by himself. Let's go to Richard Dawson and The Family Feud:
- (Dawson to contestant) Two words that describe Bill Clinton.
Two�words�that�describe�Bill Clinton.
- (Contestant) "Self Discipline?"
- (Dawson, turning to the board): SELF DISCIPLINE! Our Survey Says �
- Errrrrrrrrrpppppppp.
Like everyone else in Your Nation's Capitol, I have been considering the best possible title - solely for
the purposes of helping Knopf at least get even. You never know when you might need a friendly publisher.
I considered going for the cheap laugh with a title like "Tuesdays with Monica." And I considered
borrowing from proven best sellers by going with "Bill Clinton: The Hogwarts Years."
In the end, I decided that the best possible title for Bill Clinton's book would be one which invites
the reader to travel with Clinton as he elevates the subject matter into the realm of philosophy, while piquing the interest many more readers than scholars, reporters, and however many hundreds of thousands of copies Terry McAuliffe buys for donor fulfillment out of DNC funds. Here it is:
"Chicken Soup for the Soul; Club Soda for the Blue Dress."
� 
