It has become fashionable in political buzzland to whisper about tensions between Bill Clinton and the campaign team running Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. No doubt some of it comes directly from insiders who are irritated by the former president's occasionally off-message remarks on the trail.
But if Bill is considered such a drag why is he still campaigning nearly every day for his wife? Whatever complaints the New York senator’s team might have, nothing has led them to shy away from booking him on the road. After a weekend in South Carolina counter pointing Oprah Winfrey’s swing for Democratic contender Barack Obama, Bill went straight to Iowa for events on Monday.
Some might forget that fierce infighting is a Clintonian hallmark, especially when things are not going smoothly. Bill and Hillary themselves have been known to trade verbals blows. Even on the day of his first inauguration in 1993 they were overheard yelling at each other in a Capitol Hill holding room while stunned lawmakers listened from the next room.
Friction inside a Clinton campaign should never be mistaken for a fatal meltdown. More often than not a nasty brawl behind the scenes is followed by new tactics or a change in staffing that pretty much fixes whatever caused the blow-up. And so long as Bill stays out there on the campaign trail, you can bet that he must still be in the mix.
Craig on "The Stephanie Miller Show"
Tuesday (12/11) 9:30 AM ET
Listen Here. . . and on "Super Tuesday" MSNBC (12/11)
Listen Here (clips by Mad Mustard)

Comments
woo woo.....
now how the hell did I get it...... this has been up for over an hour...... :)
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | December 11, 2007 7:10 AM
Craig......wasnt Florence where you went in Italy for the 25 Rules book?
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 7:23 AM
Anyone see the big Scarborough smackdown this morning? It was over waterboarding and both Mika and David Schuster flat smacked Scarborough for his dopey comments. At one point Scarborough was yelling and I mean YELLING at Mika. He came off like an idiot. (No surprise.) Then Andrea Mitchell came on and in a fairly polite way also put him in his place....
Posted by: Patsi | December 11, 2007 7:28 AM
About the Clinton marriage....and this has nothing to do with my support of her campaign.....
I understand their marriage. They respect each other's minds, they have similar life goals and they have a "common enemy" in the right wing machine in this country. If I had been married to someone like that I'd have overlooked a lot of other shortcomings.
Posted by: Patsi | December 11, 2007 7:33 AM
hey.... the Clintons are two strong people with minds of their own....
of course there's going to be sparks between them....
oh Patsi..... sounds like Joe is having a meltdown....
too bad.... he was actually becoming watchable on his night time show....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | December 11, 2007 7:39 AM
Scarborough is just another Republican Fascist Nazi as was seen this morning on his show when he defended Torture.
According to him Water Boarding isn't Torture because theres no law against Water Boarding so therefore it is not Torture.
I'm sure Herr Scarborough must feel that when we tried Nazi's for Water Boarding Jews and other methods they used to save German lives from the dirty Poles and Jews that they shouldn't have been tried and hung for Torture.
Scarborough is nothing more than one of the new American Republican Nazi's and nothing more. I'd guess that I would like to see someone grab Joe Scarborough and Water Board him so he can tell us personally that he don't believe that he was Tortured after they Water Boarded him and his family.
Now I have another sin to answer for when I stand before my Lord and Saviour Jesus.
By the way, good morning everyone. Now back to work.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| December 11, 2007 7:45 AM
At least Joe admitted that Huckabee's claims that God was running his campaign are dumb....that's the only point Scarborough gets today....
Posted by: Patsi | December 11, 2007 7:57 AM
except for the one on top of his head.
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 7:58 AM
CNN aired part of a Bill Clinton speech live yesterday morning. I was only disappointed in that they broke away for another story. I don't know about the general, but he can still energize the Dems.
Also saw a clip of Oprah's speech from SC and it reminded me of Hil'ry getting flack for trying to sound southern. I understand that you have to know your audience and present your speech to reach them, but it seemed silly & maybe even belittling for Oprah to change the way you normally hear her speak to something more southern, rural and less educated.
Posted by: blueINdallas | December 11, 2007 7:58 AM
Craig,
If the funding comes through from RFD, I would like to propose that you spend Super Tuesday in Sacramento. We can all meet for lunch or dinner here
http://www.rustyduckrestaurant.com/index.html
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 8:00 AM
mornin'all.
Yeah, I saw Mika and David stand by and let Joe make an utter ass of himself. One question Joe. You were speaking as if you knew what techniques were used and how in the questioning of KSM to get the information that the CIA claims led to many arrests of terr'ists and has prevented terr'ist attacks and has kept American lives from being lost. Just how do you know this stuff? I assume that the specifics of his questioning are classified, and I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that you do not have clearnce for access to that information. Of course if you are doing what you usually do - talking out of your ass - I suppose no security clearance is necessary.
I loved it when he tried to get Schuster by asking David how they could have gotten that information if they hadn't used waterboarding- and Schuster didn't fall for the RWNM trick - instead he said that he's sure there are other techniques that may have been used that are more effective than waterboarding to get accurate information from detainees, and he didn't try to act as if he knew who did what to KSM, when and to what result. Joe looked like an idiot.
I guess the Repugs aren't even getting their message across to Repugs. I like this latest Times/CBS poll.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/us/politics/11poll.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 8:05 AM
If I were Hillary, I would be more upset with sloppy work by the campaign team. If it is like most campaign teams she has a whole gang of young, bright, overpaid folks with somewhat grandiose titles acting as "chiefs" and a small office staff "indians" who are supposed to corral the free slave labor known as volunteers.
End result: Misspelled names, bad email addresses, wrong company names, errors in press releases etc. Little things can become big things simply because someone made a truly stupid mistake.
On their marriage. Any marriage that has lasted thirty years has a good foundation and a lot of baggage. Judith Viorst once said that "Marriage is what keeps you together long enough that when you fall out of love you will have time to fall back in."
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 8:13 AM
Anyone catch Huckabee trying to step around his previous remarks in '91 about quarantining people infected with AIDS? Well, it was an open issue back then - NOT. Of course that stuff about gay lifestylebing aberrant, unnatural and sinful - never mind. Of course, the only vote he's likey to lose by this coming out is Ron Christie's.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/us/politics/09campaign.html?ref=politics
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 8:17 AM
All married couples should learn the art of battle as they should learn the art of making love. Good battle is objective and honest - never vicious or cruel. Good battle is healthy and constructive, and brings to a marriage the principle of equal partnership.
Ann Landers (1918 - 2002)
A great marriage is not when the 'perfect couple' comes together. It is when an imperfect couple learns to enjoy their differences.
Dave Meurer, "Daze of Our Wives"
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 8:17 AM
Jamie has hit the Clinton marriage nail right on the head. Imagine - two intelligent, strong-willed people who don't agree on everything and actually argue about stuff. Of course, I'm not running for public office, but Mrs.P& I have our share of verbal knock down drag outs, and I'm not as smart as either Bill or Hillary (but Mrs.P is easily as strong willed as either of them)..
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 8:22 AM
Oh, sorry, the Huckaby remarks were from '92- when he was a Senate candidate.
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 8:28 AM
Well, Pogo and Mrs. P must have a GREAT marriage...because Pogo's comments about her have made me one of her fans....
Posted by: Patsi | December 11, 2007 8:32 AM
Sturg, I didn't realize that you were as deepy read in the marriage relationship field.:-)
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 8:35 AM
Patsi, Mrs. P would be honored. If a great marraiage means clean fights and great makeups, we do just fine.
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 8:38 AM
"Hil'ry getting flack for trying to sound southern."
Blue, What got me about that incident was that it really showed how damaging bad reporting can be. She probably shouldn't have used the accent, but the name of the gospel hymn is "I Aint In No Ways Tired" which is kind of hard to say without one. Her audience recognized the quote immediately but the media reported it as if she was talking down to them and being phony rather than quoting a reference.
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 8:38 AM
couples who don't fight are couples who don't talk. the Clintons' fights don't seem to fall into the traps that evade the original point of the disagreement, and that's a healthy fight.
meantime, wonder what Hill is thinking about Andrew Young's remarks? (oops!)
"Bill is every bit as black as Barack."
"He's probably gone with more black women than Barack,"
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/12280151.html
Posted by: colleen | December 11, 2007 8:39 AM
Craig,
There is a three hour difference between the west and east coast
MSNBC Tuesday (12/11)
11:00 AM to 1:00 PM ET
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 8:42 AM
Hillary's (cold,calcuating) mistake was to support the WAR.
The Dem base has always wanted an alternative but neither Edwards nor Obama has taken positions significantly to the left of her.
The Dems base is ANGRY, with the weenies in Congress, and with presidential candidates who are afraid to sound "too liberal."
Posted by: nash
| December 11, 2007 8:44 AM
The reason the Clintons are fighhting is that they're LOSING.
I don't believe for a minute that Bill didn't sign off on Hillary's KEY decision to support the Iraq war.
They don't love each other, they love power. If Hillary's run for president fails, they'll divorce.
Posted by: nash
| December 11, 2007 8:49 AM
Ya gotta love it when the clean guy starts to get a little dirty. Don't get me wrong, I expected that a little mud would get thrown eventually, and don't hold that against Obama - just don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/12/dropping-oppo.html
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 8:49 AM
The Dems base is ANGRY, with the weenies in Congress, and with presidential candidates who are afraid to sound "too liberal."
Posted by: nash | December 11, 2007 8:44 AM
that's because when someone sez they are a liberal
Fry (or a fry like person) leaps up and sez why do you hate America? And the media applauds
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 8:53 AM
Nash
the Clintons will not divorce. ...
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 8:56 AM
This is an issue which the presidential candidates of neither party address, but it is a source of increasing unfocused unease among the voters...
From Trueblueliberal.com
On average, younger Americans are not doing better than their parents did, it’s harder to move up the economic ladder in the United States than it is in a number of other wealthy countries, and a person in today’s work force is as likely to experience downward mobility as he or she is to move up.
Posted by: nash
| December 11, 2007 8:58 AM
a person in today’s work force is as likely to experience downward mobility as he or she is to move up.
Posted by: nash | December 11, 2007 8:58 AM
and die younger as well; I blame the greatest generation for this mess. ...not the boomers
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 9:02 AM
KGC: Clintons won't divorce?
Sure they will. It's a loveless marriage of convenience. Once the chance to regain the White House slips away, Bill will shack up with a couple of young women and Hillary will join a bunch of corporate boards and make a pile of money.
They'll both finally get to do what they really want.
Posted by: nash
| December 11, 2007 9:03 AM
"They don't love each other, they love power. If Hillary's run for president fails, they'll divorce. "
And you know this for a fact how? According to the Republicans they were supposed to divorce after he left office. Now they are supposed to split after her run for the Presidency? Maybe they can split in advanced senility and retire to separate homes for the aged just to prove the right wing right.
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 9:03 AM
nash, I doubt that Bill and Hillary are fighting as much as Bill and Hillary's campaign staff, and I bet Hillary ain't all that happy with her staff these days, either. I grant you Hillary is losing ground in the first couple of states, but there's only 1 poll out of tthe 4 reported in Dec. from NH where Obama is within the MOE (and in that poll, Edwards isn't even within sight of Obama and Clinton). Maybe it's a sign of a trend, but it's much too early to say that based on one poll. And she's still the only candidate that can claim better than 50% support in her own party in any polls. And if the latest round of "what bothers you most" polls are right, Iraq is becoming less of an issue for folks and the war stance to authorize and continued stance to fund it (which all 3 dem frontrunners have done) may not hurt them as badly as you think. That doesn't sound like losing to me. As to their marital future - my crystal ball is cloudier than yours, but a divorce would not shock the crap out of me.
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 9:05 AM
pogo......the wonders of Gooooooogle.........and....is "strong willed" the same as "stubborn"?
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 9:07 AM
KGC: About HALF of all my relatives and friends (who are mostly middle class) have downwardly mobile children. I've seen every possible reaction: anger, shame, confusion, acceptance.
The kids have a much gloomier, more cyncial view of the world than their boomer parents. They have low expectations and see ambition as a waste of energy.
Posted by: nash
| December 11, 2007 9:08 AM
Gotta agree with nash on the Clinton marriage.
Waterboardin' Joe should have been listening to Col. Jack Jacobs on Imus this morning. He said the most effective interrogation he used was medical care and cigarettes.
Posted by: dnd | December 11, 2007 9:08 AM
sounded like old jack almost stepped in poop there for a minute......
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 9:10 AM
before he was talking about interrogation, I mean.....
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 9:11 AM
The happiest young couple I know would be considered downwardly mobile.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 9:11 AM
nash, Arianna is singing your song - and right on key, I might add.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/democrats-need-to-admit-t_b_76109.html
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 9:12 AM
the cynical view of the clinton marriage would indicate that they would stay together for the sake of Chelsea's run at the presidency.......
Posted by: sturgeone | December 11, 2007 9:12 AM
If the Clintons were going to divorce it would have happened a long time ago. Men are so stupid
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 9:13 AM
Jamie: The Clintons hooked up and stayed together all these years because they both lust after power. (Hillary also lusts after money, buth that's another story).
Their marriage also "works" because Hillary let Bill screw as many women as he wanted, as long as he didn't embarass her. (Ooops.)
How do I know this? I've read the "politics" section of the "NY Times" every day for 30 years. (And I loathe both of them.)
Posted by: nash
| December 11, 2007 9:13 AM
sturg, LOL. Of course strong-willed is the same as stubborn.
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 9:13 AM
kc, I resemble that remark.
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 9:15 AM
KGC: "Men are so stupid..."
...and women are so calculating, which explains the Clintons.
Posted by: nash
| December 11, 2007 9:16 AM
the only thing Arianna knows about is being a contrarian....
and she should try to fact check her crap
the dems have pulled the budget compromise
and she should aim her lackluster talents at the goopers
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 9:17 AM
pogo: re: "I resemble that remark."
"Oh, a wise guy!"
(I, too, grew up watching The Three Stooges on Saturday morning TV.)
I'll have a baloney and whipped cream sandwich.
Posted by: nash
| December 11, 2007 9:19 AM
msgop is pimping for the tweety drivel that Biden is making some kind of breakthrough....lol
Richardson will be number three before Biden
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 9:19 AM
Could the NY Times be the Chris Matthews of publishing? The state of the Clinton marriage has been declared over and done for a long long time, and for a long long time this has been incorrect
"Their marriage also "works" because Hillary let Bill screw as many women as he wanted, as long as he didn't embarass her. (Ooops.)"
I'll try to break it gently, but there are lots of much less famous marriages that operate with this proviso and they actually love each other. Might not be everyone's cup of tea, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 9:20 AM
my grandfather, was in a number of three stooges movies. My mother would not let us watch them
as they claimed they were too violent.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 9:20 AM
ps Nash
in my family my generation has less education but makes more money than my parents did even accounting for inflation
the next generation in my family is mixed --everyone so far has advanced degrees but doesn't like to work much so it's hard to factor that impact.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 9:23 AM
Arianna is a brilliant, capable woman who knows exactly which side of her bread is buttered. When it made sense to be a right wing idealogue for the sake of her phony marriage to a gay multi millionaire, that is what she was.
Once his campaign failed, she walked off with her severance pay and started the Huffington Post on the left side of the spectrum.
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 9:28 AM
In between her the end of the marriage and before she went left she was quite the winger....
her pal Ann Getty helped her win her place as a beard.
not too mention her ridiculous run for gov.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 9:30 AM
I think the problems in the Clinton campaign have to do with handling the media which hates them.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 9:31 AM
KGC: As a kid growing up in the mid-to-late 50s, I saw the all of the "Stooges" shorts, dozens of times, on TV. The films were low-budget, with goofy plots but the humorous "bits" that the Stooges did throughout were brilliant. The "violence" (mostly slapping and eye poking) was so obviously fake, it was funny.
But, as Jerry Seinfeld once said, "The difference between men and women is that men think the Three Stooges are funny and women do not."
Posted by: nash
| December 11, 2007 9:32 AM
Jamie,
I think one reason Arianna and Hillary dislike each other is because they are so similar.
Posted by: dnd | December 11, 2007 9:32 AM
The stooges hired a lot of former vaudillians they had worked with....like my grandfather, He was a character actor
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 9:40 AM
nash, I too was a huge Stooges fan. Last Christmas I bought a 5 disc compilation of the Stooges thinking Little P would like it - wrong. Too much plot development I guess. nyuk, nyuk. Loved Curly, never much cared for Joe, although Shemp did OK. I saw one of Moe's later interviews a couuple years ago. God, was the man brilliant.
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 9:49 AM
Arianna Huffington couldn't hold Hillary's shoes.
Posted by: Patsi | December 11, 2007 9:49 AM
Well, I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping that Stephanie Miller would have asked Craig if he thought Chris Matthews was a right-wing tool.
Posted by: dnd | December 11, 2007 9:50 AM
dnd
I think Hillary is both smarter and more ethical than Arianna. Neither is perfect by a long shot, but you don't get to where they are without stepping on a whole lot of toes. In a man it is determined. In a woman it is ruthless. I wouldn't want to be on Oprah's bad side either.
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 9:50 AM
The MSM LOVES the Clintons. They are a big-budget hillbillie soap opera.
Episode one: Hillary works as a corporate lawyer while governor Bill runs around eating Big Macs and screwing cocktail waitresses.
Episode two: In the White House, Hillary has a seance to talk Eleanor while Bill is staining Monica's blue dress.
Episode three: Out of the White House, Bill moves to Harlem for some brown sugar while Hillary channels Patton and climbs on board Bush's war machine.
Episode four: Hillary freezes her butt off in Iowa while Bill gets over 100,000 "friends" on MySpace, where he is known as "lonelybill15."
Posted by: nash
| December 11, 2007 9:50 AM
It's a little early, but here's my Christmas gift to you guys - Time's top 10 (and 50) lists for 2007. Get a cuppa Joe, sit back, relax and browse for a couple hours. The Top 10 editorial cartoons are particularly good.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/top10/article/0,30583,1686204_1690170_1690363,00.html
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 9:55 AM
If I were Willard I would start drawing comparisons between Hucksteree and Bill Clinton --they are a lot a like.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 9:55 AM
It was a good appearance for Craig. He really does get "chuckly" with Stephanie and the mooks.
There's another idea for a get together: Have Craig wangle us an election night party invitation with Hillary, George Takei, Elvira Mistress of the dark, the mooks and puppies in Los Angeles.
I'll bring the boxed wine.
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 9:55 AM
I think the hucksterbee rise is the religious right asserting itself in the gooper structure. They want to name the top of the ticket so it's the end for the Ghoul.
That leaves Willard and Thompson.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 9:57 AM
Duh, make that 50 top 10 lists of 2007.
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 9:57 AM
I didn't mean to imply that Arianna and Hillary had accomplished similar things or one had tactically accomplished than the other. The nod clearly goes to Hillary.
But if you look at their personality dimensions and approach to life, they are dramatically similar.
Posted by: dnd | December 11, 2007 10:03 AM
But if you look at their personality dimensions and approach to life, they are dramatically similar.
Posted by: dnd | December 11, 2007 10:03 AM
I could not disagree more. Explain this to me I don't see it at all. Of course if you think all successful women look alike ....
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 10:07 AM
" Hillary has a seance to talk to Eleanor"
Nash,
This is what I mean when I'm talking about how the right wing talking point has permeated the left wing's attitudes. It is another case of them naming something and then beating people over the head with it until it becomes believable.
Take an innocent remark about seeking inspiration from a person formally in her position and turn it into crazed lady channeling spirits. Then repeat it ad nauseum until people actually believe Hillary wore a turban while peering into a crystal ball stored with the White House china.
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 10:13 AM
the goopers use ridicule (passed off as humor)
they have nothing and are scum, their only hope is to drag their opponents down to their level.
they want people to hate politics and not vote.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 10:17 AM
I wonder if any of yall could stand the same scrutiny that yall are applying to each of the candidates?
yo soy Horsedtooty!
Posted by: horsedooty | December 11, 2007 10:19 AM
Doots,
Are you kidding? Why the hell do you think I'm not running ;-)
Posted by: dnd | December 11, 2007 10:29 AM
Dooty,
I wouldn't just lose. They would start plucking feathers and boiling oil.
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 10:42 AM
hd, of course not, but ours are not public lives and we aren't seeking the office of LeaderOfTheFreeWorld. But here's the bottom line - Mrs.P said Oprah looks terrible again. Guess Mrs.P won't be voting for Barack (actually, that's a given - she doesn't like him- doesn't feel he's trustworthy - plus she's not registered to vote here. tsk, tsk.)
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 10:59 AM
Pogo
Can she get registered before the primary
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 11:09 AM
pogo,
it just reminds me of the old joke about the lady and butcher. She asked to see a whole chicken and when handed to her, she held it by the wings and then to her nose and sniffed. "This chicken is not fresh", she said and handed it back to the butcher. After doing this several times and rejecting all the chickens, the butcher finally said, "Lady, I would bet you could not pass that test either."
yo soy Horsedooty!
Posted by: horsedooty | December 11, 2007 11:11 AM
Beady eye just said the giuliani giggle worked...he found ti infectious and it made him want to laugh.
His morning audience must be down to his mom
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 11:13 AM
AP article on Bill Clinton speech yesterday (none of which was covered by the MSM other than the picketing robot)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121000953.html
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 11:23 AM
"Even on the day of his first inauguration in 1993 they were overheard yelling at each other in a Capitol Hill holding room while stunned lawmakers listened from the next room. " Craig Crawford
sooo what were they fighting about?
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 11:32 AM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/lamp.asp
the goopers are the source of the pre swearing in fight
apparently a completely false story
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 11:36 AM
jamie, yeah, she can, but can and will are 2 different things,and I've badgered her about it for about 12 years now. I think she just hears"blah,blah, blah" now.
hd, LOLOL
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 11:40 AM
Wouldn't it be odd if she dumped Bill from her campaign?
I'm hearing more and more about the DARK side of Huckabee.
Here's the only quote I can find of what I heard on the news last night. It's chilling. Burka anyone???
"Also in 1998, Huckabee was a signatory to a letter that states, among other things:
The SBC article describes marriage as “the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime.” It also notes, “The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image. … A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. … A WIFE IS TO SUBMIT HERSELF GRACIOUSLY TO THE SERVANT LEADERSHIP OF HER HUSBAND even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."
NOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooo......
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 11, 2007 11:50 AM
it doesn't matter who the democrat is the media will focus on some trivial part of their life and ridicule them
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 11:50 AM
http://rightsfield.com/2007/12/10/christian-warrior/
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 11, 2007 11:52 AM
I certainly don't want to hear four to eight years of comments about the president's hair and endess speculation about what will happen to our country if his wife becomes critically ill.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 11:54 AM
Jamie,
"She laughed and said, 'First I love you and, second, I'm not going to run for anything, I'm too hardheaded.'"
Well duh...
And Bill managed to "pack" 500 people? Not exactly Oprah numbers. I'd hate to think slick Willie is losing his touch...
Posted by: dnd | December 11, 2007 11:55 AM
And Bill managed to "pack" 500 people? Not exactly Oprah numbers. I'd hate to think slick Willie is losing his touch...
he gets 44% and Oprah only gets 1%* so his smaller numbers have a bigger impact
*survey taken on endorsements.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 11:59 AM
Like I said some days ago....the Repubs will win. Democrats are repeating their sneer and smear already.
Posted by: Patsi | December 11, 2007 12:00 PM
"pack" 500 people"
That's a pretty good crowd for a political appearance. Oprah was a never happened before phenomenon and even after that, it doesn't show conversion to voting support whereas Bill's numbers do convert. Apparently HIllary's small gathering numbers also convert and it's that undercurrent that political analysts have to watch.
It's awfully easy to get up in the "preachin' to the choir" mentality of a campaign and not see what is really happening when the choir isn't around.
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 12:03 PM
mrs greenspan repeats baseless claims about the Clintons and then is shocked when they are denied.
what??????? Senator Cinton is not a shrew??????????
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 12:13 PM
mrs greenspan: people from Ohio will never vote for Obama
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 12:15 PM
tt
Here is the NY Times article on the Huckabee's "covenant" marriage. The doctrine that the wife shall be subservient to the husband is part of Southern Baptist/Born Again theology. The rankings are God, Man, Woman, Children.
The positive side of the commitment is that the man is to cherish and care for his wife and children in the way that God supposedly cherishes him. A lot of men forget that part of the bargain.
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 12:17 PM
Carl Bernstein's book is full of gratitous and contradictory Clinton claptrap
Bernstein claims Clinton wanted to divorce Hillary to marry someone else and yet they had a lifetime pact to run for president.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 12:19 PM
Meanwhile out in the "heartland" (they're better than those of us in the coastal areas) one Christian gun nut kills a bunch of Christians , and another Christian gun nut security guard kills the first one, and this makes us all feel better because...?
Since when do you have armed guards in church?
I guess if you live in a part of the country where the NRA sits at the right hand of God, you need guns in church.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
Posted by: nash
| December 11, 2007 12:19 PM
I think the Clinton campaign does need a course correction and the three generations of strong women tour is a good one. They need to get all the women who suport her out on the trail. They need a pink tour.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 12:32 PM
Carl Bernstein's first three books on the Bush White House were all sweetness and light and then they must have irked him because the fourth tore them apart.
I think Carl is another one who has risen to the point where he believes his own publicity.
Posted by: Jamie | December 11, 2007 12:32 PM
Welcome to the First Church of Jesus Chist, NRA Life Member.
* Please do not park your Hummer on the lawn.
* Guns are OK in church but no pipe bombs, please.
* No shooting during the Pledge of Allegiance.
* No shotting during the playing of "Dixie."
* Children may only bring .22s to Sunday School.
* Bingo on Wednesday evening.
Posted by: nash
| December 11, 2007 12:32 PM
Chuck Todd makes arguments based on false claims.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 12:40 PM
Todd claims independents in NH will remain undecided until Iowa and then decide whether to vote D or R. He has no evidence to support that and in fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 12:42 PM
jamie - I was aware of the context in which Hil'ry was using an accent for which she caught a lot of flack. My point was that Oprah should have spoken to people as she does normally. Pandering? Belittling? Maybe even, as TLR would put it, shameful.
I hated turning off the TV this morning. For the rest of the day, I think every post should end with the words:
David Schuster Rocks!
Posted by: blueINdallas | December 11, 2007 12:55 PM
KGC,
"I think the Clinton campaign does need a course correction and the three generations of strong women tour is a good one. They need to get all the women who suport her out on the trail. They need a pink tour."
Huh? Do you think people should vote for Obama because they're black? For Huckabee because they're Baptists? For Rominy because they're Mormans? For Rudy because they're Catholics?
Whatever happened to vote for a candidate because of their qualifications, where they stand on the issues and their character?
Posted by: dnd | December 11, 2007 12:58 PM
KGC....
Chuck Todd is a friggin' idiot to make such a claim.....
most NH independents might be undecided which candidate they yet support.... but I'd bet you millions of dollars that most of them knew which party ticket they'll take in this upcoming primary 4 years ago......
well..... I like the 3 Stooges..... and I know other women who like them also....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | December 11, 2007 1:02 PM
"David Schuster Rocks! "
Worth repeating, Blue....
dnd said: "Whatever happened to vote for a candidate because of their qualifications, where they stand on the issues and their character?"
Well, women probably better stand up now because a helluva lot of Democrat men appear to be obsessed with Hillary's appearance and her marriage.
I see no real examination of Obama or Edwards' positions....Hillary gets crap because she's ambitious? I've been involved in women's issues long enough to catch a faint waft of oink frying....
Posted by: Patsi | December 11, 2007 1:07 PM
Patsi,
"I see no real examination of Obama or Edwards' positions....Hillary gets crap because she's ambitious?"
You can't run for president w/o being ambitious, maybe unless you're Fred Thompson. But I see no real examination of Hillary's positions either.
The problem with the Hillary campaign is that there are people who would make excuses for her if she was caught drowning kittens for pleasure, and there are people who would still despise her if she cured cancer and found a way for world peace. And damn few in between...
Posted by: dnd | December 11, 2007 1:16 PM
blue, were you somehow offended that Oprah started talking like she was getting ready to go home on the bus after a hard day working in her white boss's house? Honest to god, I heard her last night and thought I was listening to our old maid Fannie. I've never heard her speak with that accent - of course, I have not heard Oprah utter more than 200 words total in my life except in her movies.
Renee, I knew you liked the stooges.
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 1:17 PM
dnd, Hillary's drowning kittens to cure cancer? Who knew?
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 1:20 PM
Renee,
You like baseball, football, politics AND the Three Stooges? Will you marry me?
Posted by: dnd | December 11, 2007 1:21 PM
A sign of things to come-Thompson abandons campaigning in NH.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/11/fred-thompson-is-done-with-new-hampshire/
I guess it was just too much work.
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 1:27 PM
dnd, Rick may have something to say about your proposal to Renee. He'd miss her in the hot tub at Loon.
Posted by: pogo
| December 11, 2007 1:28 PM
dnd
The Orprah tour wasn't a direct hit at black voters --a big piece of Democratic primaries
get a grip and join reality
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 1:36 PM
dnd
The Orprah tour wasn't a direct hit at black voters --a big piece of Democratic primaries
get a grip and join reality
should read
The Oprah tour wasn't a direct hit a black voters --a big piece of Democratic primaries???????????????
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 11, 2007 1:38 PM
I can't believe the venom being spewed toward Scarborough. An American Republican Nazi? Really? Truth is, he's not even that conservative. He's certainly closer to the center than either Shuster or (especially) Olbermann.
And then there's news that MSNBC wants to kick Tucker Carlson off so they can appeal to younger viewers by being a more liberal network. Man, if Fox did that to somebody on the left, a lot of you folks would crush them. But because it's NBC doing it to somebody who's sort of conservative, it's okay.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 11, 2007 3:53 PM
Heck my parents yelled at each other all the time. Bill and HIllary are two very passionate people. You should visit some Italian families. I bet at Rudy's house it ain't all peaches and cream.
Oh and a comment on the MSNBC issue... the Media are only as liberal as the conservative companies that own then.
Cheerio
Posted by: Thomas Freeman
| December 12, 2007 10:29 AM
Post A Comment