Whose marriage is it anyway?
The weird NY Times story on the number of nights Bill and Hillary Clinton spend together continues to draw some flak, though not nearly as much as it deserves, says Chuck Todd of National Journal. Joe Conason and Gene Lyons have similar takes.
Wrote Todd:
What truly made the story depressing for us though was the lack of shock and outrage about the story uttered in the Washington political community. There was some partisan outrage among folks we either read or talked to, with the left thinking the Times went over the line and the right fearing the story could only help Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., play the victim card to get into the White House.
But when the dean of all political reporters, the Washington Post's David Broder, just matter-of-factly acknowledged the significance of the Times' story without expressing even the slightest bit of regret or remorse for the very idea of running it, that's when we knew that we were going to be very lonely in expressing our disappointment. While not trying to read Broder's mind, it's likely he sees coverage like this as inevitable and that, frankly, we would be naïve if we pretended it's not there. But is this really how we're going to elect out next president; based on how many weekends a month partners of a dual-income marriage spend together? There are a number of prospective '08 candidates who have been married more than once -- should we expect the dirty details of every divorce? Apparently so, the Times has deemed.
Comments
Thread on the Lendall race now. You arenot fair otherwise.
Posted by: Greenie | May 31, 2006 01:41 PM
Well, the AT does not disappoint. Someone said it was a boring news day and they followed up with 'red meat'. Get the marriage story out early and by the time that the campaign for 'head chief' starts up they can say it is old news.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | May 31, 2006 01:51 PM
Dr. Strangelove, can you translate whatever your point is into English? Thanks.
Posted by: JG | May 31, 2006 01:58 PM
Doc, are you saying that the AT is singlehandedly trying to vaccinate the Clintons from a scandal in 2008? Wow, I had no idea Max was pointman for the MSM's sinister liberal agenda.
Second question: Are conservatives going to be scandalized by the thought that the Clinton's might not be having sex (with each other, I mean)? Cuz the Playa-in-Chief always gets it somewhere.
Posted by: dogtownius | May 31, 2006 01:59 PM
clinton Playbook: Demos are worried about the clinton marriage. Repubs always attack this vulnerable issue. Defuse it now when it has less of an impact by publicizing it. Get both clintons to cooperate with the story (which they did). Work it to death. Presidential election: That's old news. Issue is defanged. 'comprende Englise, profavor'
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | May 31, 2006 02:10 PM
Get the marriage story out early and by the time that the campaign for 'head chief' starts up they can say it is old news. Posted by: Dr. Strangelove
Some people see vast left wing conspiracies beneath every rock they overturn.
I'm sure Dr. S. really believes Hillary shot Vince Foster, too.
Posted by: Patrick, Pocahontas | May 31, 2006 02:12 PM
People, including children, are dying of preventable causes all around the world, and people want to talk about this?
Posted by: K | May 31, 2006 02:15 PM
"Some people see vast left wing conspiracies beneath every rock they overturn."
If you think that conservatives are 'fanciful' about the clinton's ability to scheme, I wouldn't try and sell that in Peoria.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | May 31, 2006 02:22 PM
I'll never forget this - and interview with "Armani" Ronnie Flyod in 2002 about the the cheating lying and divocing Sen. Tim Hutchinson. Keep in mind that "Armani" is the standard of all thing right and Christian.
Floyd was asked by a reporter of the Senator's indiscretions - and how'd they play in the upcoming election - Flyod say (paraphrasing here) that he (Hutchinson) had confessed his sins to him (Flyod) and all was forgiven - and after all his personal life is secondary to how he votes! - Swear to God! Shocking - you can screw your intern, and it's OK with the relgious right as long as you ask for forgiveness and vote the "right way".
Too bad they don't give the Clinton's the same religous courtesy.
Posted by: BlueTicker | May 31, 2006 02:24 PM
See, AT. clinton stuff really sells. You have redeemed yourselves.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | May 31, 2006 02:24 PM
Hypocracy on the Right? I'm shocked, shocked!
Bill started all of this on 60 minutes and followed up with Monica and impeachment. This is free spin for the right wing. Get used to it.
the next Dukakis?
Posted by: delbert | May 31, 2006 02:31 PM
"...you can screw your intern, and it's OK with the relgious right as long as you ask for forgiveness and vote the "right way".
You could not be more wrong about conservatives. Hutchinson's behavior is despicable. Adultery is not dismissed so easily. Do it, ask forgiveness, and continue to do it. How convenient. He would not get my vote. I don't condone his behavior any more than I condone clinton's.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | May 31, 2006 02:32 PM
If Tim Hutchinson had not paid a price in Northwest Arkansas for his infidelity, he would still be in the U.S. Senate today. You could look it up. In this instance, the religious right did NOT look the other way.
Posted by: Arkansawyer | May 31, 2006 02:45 PM
The Baptist Church, or any other church, needs to quit condoing this kind of behavior regardless of the prominence or political persuasion of its congegation. If Mr. Floyd did condone this he will have to answer for his actions as Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Clinton will one day.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2006 02:58 PM
Dr. I'm just quotin' one of you Republican standard barriers in NWA - he said and the sheeple of NWA voted overwhelmingly to send the lying cheatin' throw away my wife of 25 years Hutchinson.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2006 03:00 PM
How much clearer can I be. I do not condone ANYONE, regardless of political label, who supports that behavior. I don't condone it for clinton and I don't condone it for hutchinson or gingrich.
The problem runs throughout our culture and is not confined to political philosophy. Liberals don't usually get exercised by it. Conservatives, unfortuately, don't seem to anymore. You can probably chalk that victory up to the likes of the clintons who made it fashionable. ANYONE who cheapens marriage strikes at the heart of our society.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | May 31, 2006 03:07 PM
Bill Bennett
Rush LImbaugh
Newt Gingrich
Ralph Reed
Tim
Scooter..........
and on it goes for values voters.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2006 03:07 PM
It appears "Strangelove" has over taken the AT post. At 3:48 PM SickL has made six posts to this item. This is a repeat of a previous situation on another AT post. To be honest the SickL posts read as if the Hunkabilly prepared them.
Is He (it?) really into "Strange" love? If he/it believes only 1/3 of his own bull S, he/it is really into strange self love.
To avoid he/it looking me up, I will sign off as, you guessed it, Anonymous. That should make he/it real happy.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2006 03:57 PM
Ok, I get the picture. I have worn down you Cpt. Dunsils. Let's see if the liberal mind is sharp enough to figure this one out.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | May 31, 2006 04:11 PM
OK he/it. I give. You really got me.
God. It must really be a heavy burden to be as brilliant as you and not have everyone recognize it.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2006 04:24 PM
Just wondering something...are Bill and Hill still married? Just curious.
Posted by: Allen_2008 | May 31, 2006 09:30 PM
Ok, I get the picture. I have worn down you Cpt. Dunsils. Let's see if the liberal mind is sharp enough to figure this one out. Posted by: Dr. Strangelove
I remember an episode of the original Star Trek where they put a super computer on the ship to pretty much replace the captain. The superiors at Star Fleet referred to Kirk as Captain Dunsil, "dunsil" being a midshipman's term from Starfleet Academy referring to a part of a ship that serves no useful purpose.
Most liberals love Star Trek. I'm surprised a conservative does.
It appears "Strangelove" has over taken the AT post...To be honest the SickL posts read as if the Hunkabilly prepared them. Posted by: Anonymous
I don't think so. Hunkahillbilly is a troglodyte, little higher than a fungus. Dr. Strangelove is cerebral. Just misguided.
Posted by: Patrick, Pocahontas | May 31, 2006 10:40 PM
Captain Dunsil? The M-5 Multi-tronic unit failed and its creator Dr. Daystrom suffered an emotional breakdown. Is the implication that since GW has failed Karl will suffer? Please continue Doctor. I want to learn to love the bomb.
"You may find that having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. This is not logical, but it is often true." Spock
Posted by: Ninjakai | May 31, 2006 11:16 PM
I was watching the original series when most of you were sucking your thumbs or putting tin foil on your heads.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | June 1, 2006 09:08 AM
Commodore Bob Wesley called Kirk "Captain Dunsel." Spock explained the meaning of "dunsel" to McCoy as a term used by midshipmen at the Federation Academy for a part which serves no useful purpose. Thanks Patrick, with apologies to my fellow Trekkers for the miss-spelling. Star Trek Episode 53, Season 2: 'The Ultimate Computer' originally aired 03-08-1968. The James Blush adaptation 'Star Trek 9' was published in 1973. I saw and read both. Strangelove must be fighting his renegade right hand for control.
Posted by: Ninjakai | June 1, 2006 07:16 PM