While discussing 2008 presidential candidates with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on the June 12 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson asked: If the nominees are Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), “who takes a lot of money from the abortion lobby, from people who actually commit abortion, and [former New York City Mayor] Rudy Giuliani [R], who is pro-choice but says he wants to reduce the number of abortions, that's not a clear choice?” Carlson reiterated his question later, asking: “If you're morally opposed to abortion, you've never supported a pro-choice candidate, but it is a choice between a pro-choice candidate, Giuliani, who says he will work to reduce abortions, and Hillary Clinton, who takes money from people who commit them, what do you do?” Contrary to Carlson's suggestion, Clinton has stressed on numerous occasions the need to reduce abortions, having advocated making abortion “safe, legal, and rare” for years, as Media Matters for America has noted.

During a forum for presidential candidates on the June 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Clinton was asked if she “could see [her]self, with millions of voters in the pro-life camp, creating a common ground with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortions to zero.” She responded:

CLINTON: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts. ... There are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions.

Also, during a speech to the New York State Family Planning Providers in January 2005, Clinton said:

So we have a lot of experience from around the world that is a cautionary tale about what happens when a government substitutes its opinion for an individual's. There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our Constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances. But we cannot expect to have the kind of positive results that all of us are hoping for to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions if our government refuses to assist girls and women with their health care needs, a comprehensive education and accurate information.

From the June 12 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

CARLSON: But at this point, we're looking at Rudy Giuliani relative to the other Republican candidates, or conservatives are. But if it comes down to Giuliani versus Hillary Clinton, here's what Pat Mahoney -- he's the head of the Christian Defense Coalition, some of you know -- tells The Politico. Quote, “Where Giuliani is today, I absolutely could not support him. However, I would not completely rule it out. There are two words that change the whole dynamic, and those two words are 'Hillary Clinton.' ” Is that a fair position?

PERKINS: Well, let me give you one word: November. This past November, look what happened to the Republicans in Congress because of the scandals, in large part because of [former Rep.] Mark Foley [R-FL], the spending issues. The Republicans voted, social conservatives voted, exit polling shows that they voted, but what they did not do is they did not work for Republican candidates. They were not excited. Will social conservatives go and vote for Giuliani? Yes, some will. I would say not a whole lot, but some will. But they will not work, they will not get excited for him. And in closely decided elections -- which, our last two presidential elections have been very close -- every vote counts, and there will be a lot of votes that won't show up.

CARLSON: But the election will not likely be a choice between Giuliani, Hillary, and [Focus on the Family founder and chairman] James Dobson. It's going to be a choice between two people. Only one is going to be president. And if it is going to be a choice between Ms. Clinton, who takes a lot of money from the abortion lobby, from people who actually commit abortion, and Rudy Giuliani, who is pro-choice but says he wants to reduce the number of abortions, that's not a clear choice?

PERKINS: It's a degree, and I think what you have is you have people that may vote for him but who will not work for him. That's going to have impact --

CARLSON: So it's worth losing on principle, is what you're saying?

PERKINS: No, I'm saying it's just a fact. It's a reality you cannot excite people -- how are you going to excite people who come to politics not just because they're partisan? They come because of the issues they're passionate about.

CALRSON: Right.

PERKINS: How are they going get excited about a candidate who is anathema to them?

CARLSON: I absolutely agree with you. You're arguing the politics of it. I'm asking, though, a question about ethics. Which is -- what's the right decision to make? If you're morally opposed to abortion, you've never supported a pro-choice candidate, but it is a choice between a pro-choice candidate, Giuliani, who says he will work to reduce abortions, and Hillary Clinton, who takes money from people who commit them, what do you do?

From the June 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

REV. JOEL HUNTER (senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, in Longwood, Florida): Hi, Senator Clinton. Abortion continues to be one of the most hurtful and divisive facts of our nation. I come from the part of the faith community that is very strongly pro-life. I know you're pro-choice, but you have indicated that you would like to reduce the number of abortions. Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in the pro-life camp, creating a common ground with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero?

CLINTON: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And by rare, I mean rare.

And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me --

[applause]

CLINTON: There are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions.

There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today.

We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make.

And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed.

We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally. And so I think there is a great opportunity. But it would require sort of a leaving at the sides the suspicion and the baggage that comes with people who have very strong, heartfelt feelings.

You know, when I first started thinking about this very difficult issue -- because it is. It's a moral issue. And it should not be in any way diminished as a moral issue, no matter which side you're on. Because I have seen cases where I honestly believed that the moral choice was very complicated and not so straightforward as to what a young woman, her family, her physician, her pastor should do.

And what concerns me is that there's been a real reluctance for anyone to make a move toward the other side for fear of being labeled as turning one's back on the moral dimensions of the issue from either direction.

So, I would invite you and I would be willing to work with you to see whether there couldn't be some common ground that one could find.