« The McLaughlin Group | Main | Paging Dr. Phil »

March 24, 2008



I've told you a thousand times, Monica: Don't exaggerate.

Moving beyond my sarcasm, it's really too much to call the Clintons the "most" of all those adjectives, and "political assassins". Give me a break. Is it the word "duo" that is important here? Because neither come close to the tactics of Karl Rove.

The Clintons are tough, but not in the same awful league as Karl Rove, and I'm glad about that. They are tough, granted. But not down in the sewer with Rove.

The hatred that so many rightwingers feel for Hillary Clinton is still over the top.


Richardson was the big story this past weekend. But the big story today is 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq:


Again, congratulations to all of you that supported the war.

Account Deleted


Several weeks back on The McLaughlin Group you said something that had been discomforting for many Americans but previously remained unspoken, “Hillary’s candidacy is about an illegal third term for Bill.” This is a spot-on observation. Whereas there is no Constitutional proscription against such a gambit, a Laura Bush candidacy, for example, would almost certainly, and correctly, be viewed by most as the stuff of politics in Argentina.

This is a fertile subject for exploration: would the election of the spouse of a former President offend the spirit of the 22nd Amendment?



The answer is No. There's no law against taking advice from your spouse, but, in the end, the person who was elected gets the final decision (subject, of course, to our system of checks and balances).

Monica's "third term" argument is, like most of what she says, simple-minded and one-dimensional.

Account Deleted

The quandary Hillary’s candidacy poses is indeed complex and Monica’s perspicacity in bring the matter to the forefront is a service to the American public. The 22nd Amendment includes the words, “ … or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President …”

Hillary’s argument for being commander-in-chief is that she had more involvement in policy making and international affairs than that which is normally ascribed First Ladies. If that is true, she acted as co-President and is limited to a single term, at most, and arguably not even that given her self-proclamations. If she didn’t, her argument is reduced to serving on the Senate Armed Service Committee only--hardly compelling. If she wants to avoid even the illusion of a Constitutional breach by her husband, she has to forswear or preemptively limit by definition his future role in her administration.

I spoke of “spirit” not “letter” of the Amendment. If your opinion is so definitive and exclusive, I assume then we should welcome you to the family of strict constructionist interpreters of the Constitution, and further assume you will vote for the candidate most likely to appoint such justices.

And whose blog is this anyway? You seem to have more entries than the author. But whatever your remarks, it would be a courtesy to her and to all if you would say in writing what you might say as a guest in her home without risking being thrown out or being regarded as boorish.


Monica Crowley sets the tone for this web site, and it's not one of courtesy (i.e., when she uses the acronym C.L.I.T. to describe Hillary Clinton's advisors), so get off that tired soapbox. When Monica becomes more mature and makes this blog a place for reasonable discourse, I'll follow suit. Until then . . .

I'll contribute as much as I like. As far as I can tell, plenty of others contribute as much as I do, such as Finch and Allah Schmallah, but rightwingers like their opinions and don't like mine, so they notice how often I post. Again, get off that tired soapbox.

Now to your supposed point. As First Lady, Hillary certainly played a role in her husband's presidency. But calling her a co-president and suggesting her presidency would violate the "spirit" of the Constition as absurd. That's not strict construction. Based on what you say, a Secretary of State could be regarded as a co-president and could not run on his/her own. So move on from this point and try to come up with something intelligent to say, friend.

As you have probably guessed, I will vote for the Democratic candidate. I am not going to vote for someone who will likely appoint more Scalias and Thomases (and maybe even a Miers!). Nonetheless, I'm glad that McCain is the Republican candidate because he is Bush's arch-enemy. (You know, the guy whose vice-president, when told how Americans think the costs of the war where not worth it, answers, "So?")

Before you suggest I'm boorish, read some entries by Allah Schmallah.


ET tu Brute: Richardson is a slow learner too. After kissing her backside for months he know discovers the real Bill and Hillary and sees the handwriting on the wall, and stabs her in the back. I have never understood the Democratic Party ever since they nominated George McGovern in one of the craziest nominating conventions in 1972.

I'm really looking forward to this years Democratic Convention. It's shaping up to be the mother of all Democratic Conventions. It will make reality TV look like an Easter picnic on a Sunday afternoon.


If their party goes along as it did with George Wallace, a plebiscite determines the spirit, doesn't it? I would worry about him overshadowing or even interfering with Hillary, and possibly dealing on the side with his bro. He probably would be one of the more interesting first ladies.


There's no point in reminding the earnest ---and frequently belligerent---Clintophile of the essential Billary, the you're-getting-two-for-the-price-of-one duo. It's really asking too much. How can righteous Northern progs, unable to understand even basic manners, be expected to comprehend the South and its politics?

J. Pierpont Finch

One thing Hillary does not have a steep learning curve to overcome is HOW TO LIE (ie. Deliberately "MISSPEAK")

CBS Exposes Hillary Clinton Bosnia Trip


For CBS to do a report like this on Hillary must have required quite a bit of choaking on the part of their partisan reporters.


You underestimate reporters' desire to expose candidates' misstatements. CBS had actual footage showing that what Clinton said was not true. I'm sure their excitement about having actual footage (including Clinton speaking with the CBS reporter) outweighed any bias you think they have.

J. Pierpont Finch



Contributing to Obama's humpty-dumpty candidacy, was that even fair of Bloomberg?


Now even Richardson is pretending to support the big O.

The comments to this entry are closed.