Doonesbury Comic Strip Boasts 'No Divorces or Infidelities' For Clinton, Obama, Edwards

Photo of Tim Graham.

Liberal arrogance is parading around in the Sunday funnies again – in Garry Trudeau’s Doonesbury strip – misplaced arrogance about how the major Democratic presidential contenders have no "infidelities." How, pray tell, do we know that? How IS the Hillary math done on that – no "infidelities" in the Clinton marriage?

The Sunday comic strip features gay radio host Mark Slackmeyer interviewing religious-right leader Dr. James Dobson: "On the GOP side, the three front-runners, Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich have five divorces among them, four of them really messy, and all of them involving adultery. On the Democratic side, the three front-runners, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, have no divorces or infidelities."

It continues with Slackmeyer asking: "So my question is, which party best represents family values?" Fake Dobson replies: "The Republicans. They don’t support gay marriages." Slackmeyer replies: "Nor their own, apparently." Fake Dobson, sounding utterly fake: "That’s private! That’s between a man and a woman and another woman, and sometimes one more woman!"

Trudeau is here is playing around with facts. Start with the point that Newt Gingrich isn’t actually a declared candidate for president. In some polls, he places third, but not in others. Using Mitt Romney, for example, would ruin the "joke."

This all sounds like the kind of argument liberals used in the mid-1990s to deflect attention from Bill Clinton’s private life, mocking conservative leaders for having bad marriages. But using that spin is one thing. It’s entirely another to assert as fact that there are "no infidelities" in marriages that the national press corps has no record in pursuing. They did far too much kvetching about the "sex police" in 1998 and 1999 to lower themselves to investigating Trudeau’s unproven point. If liberals don’t want reporters hunting through motel dressers, they shouldn’t do this kind of boasting.

PS: Personally, I’m disgusted at Republican candidates who cannot keep marital oaths. Social conservatives ought to have higher standards of character, and deny liberals these lame arguments.

Oh, and The Washington Post is especially cruel to Doonesbury, putting it on the front page of the comics section right above "Opus." Trudeau isn't even attempting to be funny most of the time, since it gets in the way of the diatribes, and Opus man Berkeley Breathed is routinely funny, even when he mocks conservatives.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

 “I’m disgusted at Repub

 

“I’m disgusted at Republican candidates that cannot keep marital oaths . . . . “ 

 . . . . then of course there is the prospect of being married to Hillary.

Of course no divorces on the

Of course no divorces on the Democrat side.   The women are more masculine than the men.

By The Way.......Doonesbury?

By The Way.......Doonesbury?  I thought that washed up 70's burnout of a cartoon vanished years ago. At least a liberal is in the right place. the comic pages.

Well, the media may not tal

Well, the media may not talk to/about him much, but one of the Republican candidates has been happily married to the same girl since Feb. 1, 1957...See him on Lou Dobbs tonight (unless they reschedule it again!).
JMR

dungberry

I thought hillary was a lesbian, at least that is the impression I get from the pant suits and butchy hair-cuts. Am i to believe Bill and Shrill engage in intercourse? When? Where?Why?

Ewww - some things are too di

Ewww - some things are too disgusting to even think about....Mad Pole, thanks for spoiling my lunch!

Don't settle for a RINO. Let's find and support a TRUE conservative.

Firstly, the more I learn a

Firstly, the more I learn about Hillary, the more her husband's philandering makes sense to me. (I'm not justifying it or saying it's okay; I'm just saying I can empathize.)

Secondly: despite Doonesbury being "satire", does Dr. Dobson not have any legal recourse for the ridiculous dialogue put into his mouth by Trudeau?

~~~
If Hillary is the answer, it must've been a stupid question...

I absolutely agree. I am not

I absolutely agree. I am not sure why he married her in the first place. Perhaps it was a career move or maybe he felt he was marrying into money. He came from a poor family and she came from an upper middle class family. . . . . Or maybe he was stoned.

The irony, of course, is th

The irony, of course, is that the REAL Dr. Dobson isn't much more impressed with the Republican front-runners than Trudeau is, and for that very reason. Even if you find yourself agreeing with a leftist, watch your back.

Again, the strained humor say

Again, the strained humor says much about the left's frustration.
Thank goodness tim has the stomach to voluntarily read this crap
No way I could or would.

How IS the Hillary math don

How IS the Hillary math done on that – no "infidelities" in the Clinton marriage?

EVERY reporter in Washington knows that Bill Clinton's current squeeze is a female Canadian MP

And that Hillaryis at minimum, a two-stater, in that Bill tries to keep at least two states between him and the other person mentioned on his marriage license, at all times.

It's a good job they're not "investigatve reporters" else it might all come out and damge her 'credibility'.

"This is the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel,"

Rosie O'Donnell, Ph.Dumbass, Emeritus Professor of Stupid Wimmn's Studies, Clown University.

Doonesbury Comic Strip Boas

Doonesbury Comic Strip Boasts 'No Divorces or Infidelities' For Clinton, Obama, Edwards

Well, as far as we know that's true, right? Hillary, to our knowledge, hasn't cheated on Bill; Bill cheated on Hillary.

No, but she knowingly enabled

No, but she knowingly enabled him....even setting up and running the "Bimbo Eruption" coverup program.

even setting up and running t

even setting up and running the "Bimbo Eruption" coverup program.

Yes, she did.  Trudeau himself cannot possibly believe the point he tried and failed to make here.

Its was all in good fun

The facts might not have accurate but I thought the strip was pretty funny. I have read Doonsbury, they attack the left as well.

Yeah, right.  Care to give s

Yeah, right.....hey, maybe you get a different Doonsbury than  the rest of the country!   Care to give us some examples of YOUR Doonsbury that "attacks the left?"

Personally, I’m disgusted

Personally, I’m disgusted at Republican candidates who cannot keep marital oaths.

If they cannot keep their oath sto their spouse, why should we then trust them to keep their respective oath's of office?

After all, if a man or woman cannot keep a promise to the person we assume they intend to spend the rest of their lives with, they surely aren't going to think twice about hosing us.

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.

Dave, I totally agree with

Dave, I totally agree with you here. This narrows the field right from the git go. I haven't done all the research, but I believe this would leave Romney, Tancredo, Brownback , any more? Oh ya, McCain? (I think).

opps, Ron Paul (sorry sarc) :-)

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

& the invisible-in-the-

& the invisible-in-the-media one...Oh, and McCain's on wife#2.
JMR

Didn't know that about McCa

Didn't know that about McCain. And I edited for the invisible one. sorry.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

No problem. I do like what

No problem. I do like what his wife says about their family, obviously. And it looks like an internet t-shirt's coming out for the few people like me: "I voted for Ron Paul before it was cool." SOLD! :^) Clearly, I've gotta have that one.
JMR

MM,I'm also hoping that Fre

MM,

I'm also hoping that Fred Thompson doesn't have anything in his past that will jump up and bite him. So far, I think he is in the clear. There is that little cancer problem, but I think he can deflect that pretty well, even though the MSM will make it an issue if they perceive him as a real threat.

As for the rest of the "front-runner" Republicans being pushed by the MSM, I'm guessing that by this time next year, most of them will have fallen by the wayside, as, other than Newt (who I do not believe will run himself based on his own marital infiledities-but I could be wrong) there is not a true conservative among them.

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.

Well the scrutiny is really

Well the scrutiny is really going to start to tighten as time goes on. Fortunatly for Thompson, the stigmata of being an "actor" has been debunked by precedent! :-)

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

I don't care about his canc

I don't care about his cancer. I DO care about his Constitutionally-challenged vote for the McCain Feigold incumbent-protection act. Let's just say "I'm not impressed."
JMR

sarc,You are right about Fr

sarc,

You are right about Fred's vote. I had totally forgotten about it.

Well, I'll forgive his impudence just this once. But thats it.

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.

I fear it. I'm not certain

I fear it. I'm not certain I could forgive such a Constitutionally-challenged vote. I wish him well in his illness, but I worry about "exciting" candidates whose "principles" change like the wind. I like a Republican candidate a major media figure (with no uproar here, but I'm still supposed to believe there's no antilibertarian bias) describes as "boring." It's true, after all. He's predictable, if you like the Constitution & think like me, you can pretty much predict his positions. Apparently, that's bad for ratings, no-matter how good it might be for the country... Will Thompson blatantly ignore the First Amendment? Will Dole vote to raise the minimum wage? THOSE questions are "exciting," because there's no way to predict what they'll do, in either case, and it's obviously been going on for decades.
JMR

Well, right now I'm a Thomp

Well, right now I'm a Thompson fan (he's from a state neighboring mine) and certainly nobody's perfect. (one mistake, I can forgive)
What would you think of a Paul/Thompson (or Thompson/Paul) ticket Sarc? Something we could both agree on? ;-)

What I did today.

I'd still be surprised, giv

I'd still be surprised, given the pervasive antilibertarian bias I've singlehandedly-shown here, if he's allowed in the "debate," much less on any form of the ticket. Fiscal conservatives have been screwed for the past decade+ in favor of the screwy Ted Haggard wing of the Republican party, and the nest has been soiled. Part of me, for that reason, wants Hillary. Otherwise, libertarians will be blamed for the effects of the already-soiled nest regardless of who is actually responsible.
JMR

Hey Sarc, Don't know if you'v

Hey Sarc, Don't know if you've seen this (quote-indented section about half-way down). I was worried about that vote, too, but Thompson has admitted that it was a mistake and, given the chance, he would change his vote. Perhaps he's pandering, though I consider that a bit of a stretch for someone who is not officially running (yet). I’m not trying to bait you; as I’ve said in the past, I have little time to post and only do so when I think I have something meaningful to contribute. Like you, I like Ron Paul better than anyone else so far. But Thompson is a very close second.

True, he's at least smart e

True, he's at least smart enough to backtrack from that vote...I'm also annoyed at Bush for not-vetoing & the Supremes for not-$#!Tcanning that piece of legislative crapola. I have a large reserve of "pissed off" to go-around on that one. I'm a First Amendment absolutist, and this is one of the few times it's NOT getting people like me in trouble, so I doubt this issue will go away with a mere apology. I'd want a commitment to introduce legislation reversing the mistake at a minimum.
JMR

"Like you, I like Ron

"Like you, I like Ron Paul better than anyone else so far. "

Isn't there a video on YouTube where Ron Paul is giving audience to some 9/11 conspiracy nuts, and in the video he implies that they might be right?

ckcThere was...I also heard h

ckc

There was...I also heard him on the House floor say he wanted the UN to take care of this war and blah blah blah, he was one of my favorites once, long ago, until I heard some things coming from his mouth myself that just blew me away.

He also flip-flops as far as I am concerned.

I want us out of the UN altogether..the most corrupt organization world-wide as far as I am concerned.

I know sarc will come back with a different link, I do not have any but I know what I have heard from his own lips over the years...sarc and I have been going back and forth a tad over Paul for awhile now...I sure respect his opinion, just think he is wrong, as he does me.

LOL!

Different link?? Why bother

Different link?? Why bother??? You people have yet to come up with your own link in the first place, and the link I PMed you long ago to his Texas Straight Talk column refutes your UN allegation entirely, whether or not you're determined to believe it anyway. I give up, logic does not work. Put up some specific info, and THEN I'll spend the time to refute you. Not until. And if you want to hold Ron Paul to the standards of "any random loon in the audience," I demand to be able to hold Thompson, etc. to that same standard? Sound like a good deal to you? I didn't think so....Stick with the man himself and his own words if you want to make a logical critique.
JMR

But, Fred has since said that

Edited ; sdb already said what I said.

Don't settle for a RINO. Let's find and support a TRUE conservative.