I thought he was doing fine at the beginning of section one, pointing out that statism is naughty whether it's the theocratic right or the socialist left. However, on a subsequent read I realized that all he really wrote was that judicial decree was not the appropriate medium for statism, and that the Democrats' attempts to do so were misguided. Ah well. He had only the vaguest argument for this position, but he had a few examples (making liberal use of phrasing and terminology that make his opinion all too clear) in an attempt to support his opinion by quasi-anecdotal evidence.
Then he whipped out the abortion card, used the most loaded (read: brain-bypassing) semantics he could in lieu of actual argument, then attempted to use the resulting twinge of indignation, distaste or guilt (or perhaps it was just indigestion) to support his original premise. Bzzz. Thanks for playing.
I agree with his opinion of the nature of Hillary "It Takes a Commune" Clinton. However, I don't think having her nominated will teach the party leadership anything. Personally, I wouldn't mind if she's elected. I love it when opposite parties hold those two branches of government. She'll be so busy trying to make her mark, and the Republican Congress will be so busy stopping her, that they won't be able to screw too much up. And maybe the Constitution will heal itself a little (although I may be pushing the "living document" metaphor a bit far).
On the other hand, there's North Korea that we aren't hearing much about, the struggling protests in Iran (recently subjected to violent responses by pro-government groups and which finally hit a US feed), the ongoing labor riots ("protests") in France (which we also aren't hearing about), and there's still Iraq and Afghanistan hanging around ... and I am in no way confident she would address these in any safe way.
Overall, it looks like he took his particular beliefs and opinions (heavily influenced by his Mormon upbringing), assumed they were correct and would be accepted by the readers a priori (with a little help from the propagandists' dictionary), and condemned the Democratic party for not conforming to them or being successful in pursuing them. However, since he provides no argument for the implied assertion that his beliefs are correct, his condemnation doesn't have much bite. In other words, his article has much the same problem that the Democratic party does ... ideas without cogent argument.