Author of NY Times Clinton marriage article acknowledged that amount of time Clintons spend together is "pretty similar" to that of other congressional families
SUMMARY: Patrick Healy, the author of a front-page May 23 New York Times article purporting to examine the married life of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and former President Bill Clinton, acknowledged on CNN on May 31 that the time the Clintons spend together is "pretty similar" to other families that include a member of Congress.
On the May 31 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, Patrick Healy, the author of a front-page May 23 New York Times article purporting to examine the married life of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and former President Bill Clinton, acknowledged that it was "a very fair point to make" when host Zahn wondered whether Healy's calculation of the number of days the Clinton's have recently spent together would be "really any different from members of Congress whose families stay at home in the home district and the -- the working member of Congress stays in Washington." Healy responded that the time the Clintons spend together is "pretty similar" to other families that include a member of Congress.
Healy's acknowledgment that the Clintons are apparently no different from other congressional couples in terms of time spent together would appear to undermine a basic premise of the May 23 article: that, as Healy wrote, "since leaving the White House, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built largely separate lives." He wrote then that this was "partly because of the demands of their distinct career paths and partly as a result of political calculations." We learn now that even Healy agrees that the amount of time the Clintons spend together is "pretty similar" to other couples in which one spouse serves in Congress, though he failed to address this point in his original report on the Clintons.
In his report on the Clintons, Healy catalogued the number of days the Clinton's have spent together over the past 17 months:
Since the start of 2005, the Clintons have been together about 14 days a month on average, according to aides who reviewed the couple's schedules. Sometimes it is a full day of relaxing at home in Chappaqua; sometimes it is meeting up late at night. At their busiest, they saw each other on a single day, Valentine's Day, in February 2005 -- a month when each was traveling a great deal. Last August, they saw each other at some point on 24 out of 31 days. Out of the last 73 weekends, they spent 51 together. The aides declined to provide the Clintons' private schedule.
Discussing the article with Healy, Zahn said: "You did some very interesting analysis of the time they spend together, the time they spend apart. But when you crunch those numbers, are those really any different from members of Congress whose families stay at home in the home district and the working member of Congress stays in Washington?" Healy replied, "Sure, it's pretty -- it's pretty similar. And that's a very fair point to make. The thing is, is that Hillary Clinton is not just one of 100 senators. She's a distinct political figure, a rock star, if you will, in the Democratic Party."
As documented by Media Matters for America, the 2,000-word article by Healy was based on the accounts of "some 50 people," "many" of whom "were granted anonymity to discuss a relationship for which the Clintons have long sought a zone of privacy." Healy also revived unsubstantiated rumors of an alleged affair between Bill Clinton and a Canadian politician, claiming that tabloid pictures last year of Clinton leaving the restaurant with Belinda Stronach in a group that included "roughly a dozen people" fueled concerns among prominent Democrats. Following its publication, numerous news outlets ran reports and aired discussions on the article.
Healy had also previously wondered in a 2004 report in The Boston Globe whether Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), was "a bit kooky" and openly questioned "what kind of marriage the Kerrys have" while filing other erroneous stories on the Democratic nominee that fueled Republican attacks.
By contrast, Healy has let another prominent New Yorker and possible presidential contender, former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, escape similar personal probing in three recent stories.
From the May 31 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now:
ZAHN: And with me now is the author of that New York Times article about the Clintons' marriage, Patrick Healy. Good of you to join us, Patrick. So --
HEALY: Hi, Paula.
[...]
ZAHN: You did some very interesting analysis of the time they spend together, the time they spend apart. But when you crunch those numbers, are those really any different from members of Congress whose families stay at home in the home district and the -- the working member of Congress stays in Washington?
HEALY: Sure, it's pretty -- it's pretty similar. And that's a very fair point to make. The thing is, is that Hillary Clinton is not just one of 100 senators. She's a distinct political figure, a rock star, if you will, in the Democratic Party. She's the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, a lot of people say. And Bill Clinton isn't simply Teresa Heinz Kerry or Laura Bush or Tipper Gore or even Bob Dole, when Liddy Dole ran. He would be returning as an ex-president to the White House. So, their schedules, I think, really are distinctive. Their ambitions are incredibly distinctive. But, even more than that, Paula, what a lot of their friends said, and some of their advisers, is that there's a very conscious effort to manage how they appear in public together. You pointed out the Coretta Scott King moment, where she, to a lot of Democrats, looked diminished, whereas today if he's playing the helpful, the booster, giving the great sound bite to the media afterwards, that's great, but as long as he doesn't upstage her or crowd her presence too much.















So he concedes that his story is really a non-story...
Then what does he do? He senselessly rambles on making pointless points about things that have nothing to do with anything!
Seriously, did anyone grasp anything from his tangent?
This part perfectly illustrates my point:
"He would be returning as an ex-president to the White House. So, their schedules, I think, really are distinctive. Their ambitions are incredibly distinctive."
DISTINCTIVE? What the heck is that supposed to mean?!? WHAT IS THIS IDIOT'S POINT???
He's just pathetically scrambling to come up with something interesting to say and making a complete jack*** of himself in the process!
Let's cut to the chase, and get right to the crux of the matter of our Presidents and their spouses:
Madison's Dolly was no doll, or cookie either.
Washington's Martha was guilty of insider trading (she knew about the whiskey tax before the public did, and dumped all her corn futures based upon that inside information).
Lincoln's Mary Todd was a nagging bitch (or that's how she's portrayed in the movies anyway; Ruth Gordon was marvelous).
Grant's wife enabled his drinking problem (and Congress did the same, by exempting him from paying the whiskey tax).
FDR's Elenor was a liberal (they liked to say she was a lesbian too, but her children have all vehemently denied that speculation).
JFK's Jackie was beautiful (better looking than Marilyn Monroe I thought).
Carter's Roselyn is the nicest person you could ever meet.
Reagan's Nancy practiced astrology, or numerology, or voodoo or something; whatever it was, it worked two terms for her husband.
And as for Cinton's Hillary Rodham?
Well, she kept her marriage intact, despite the big mouth of a girl at the office, and the big nose of a guy named Starr...
And she got elected to the U.S. Senate...
And they say she may aspire to be President some day (although I've not heard anything so foolish said by her)...
And I guess that's the cause of much of the talk and the gossip, a potential run for the presidency...
I don't guess it, I know it.
But if such a thing did happen, if Clinton's Hillary Rodham were elected president, I can only imagine what they'd say about the president's spouse then...
Hillary Rodham's Bill was impeached (but turned out to be fire-proof).
No wonder they're deleting comments on the NYT blog. If that's the best I could come up with, I'd want to duck questions on this, too.
What, we're supposed to believe the Clintons are uniquely politically aware of how their spouse affects their public image? Like, what, this is something they invented?
Duh, she's a woman and her husband is the ex-president so her political calculations are different from George Bush's "my wife is more popular than I am, so let's send her out to the talk shows" approach. An article on that would be fair game (though not page 1 material), but that's not the article Healy wrote.
Healy's article bizarrely suggested that the Clintons are the only DC politicians who think about how to best use the spouse on the campaign trail--or that they're uniquely calculating or some such claptrap. Please. I'm sure the 50 or so Congressmen screwing their staffers and spending the exact same (or more) time away from their families have marriages less of convenience than the Clintons do.
So, the Clintons are neither uniquely distant nor uniquely calculating, but an article implying they were both somehow made its way to the front page of the NY Times. Whatever. It's stupid and it's the same old double standard that we see applied to all Democrats but especially the Clintons. And I say this as someone who doesn't really like Hillary as a Senator, much less wants to see her as President.
I wonder if the NYT has noticed yet how little traction this story has.
...What a waste of time this obsession with the Clinton's marriage is. I'm tempted to chastise MMFA for even posting them...but, I suppose these bits qualify as RW misinformation (as a smokescreen more than anything).
What difference does any of this spying on the Clintons make? What business is it of ours how much time they spend together? That's between Hillary and Bill. As much as I hate the paparazzi crap that follows celebrities, this is even worse.
Go away, loser.