In politics it's called exposing yourself for unnecessary reasons. The fact is not that one can't discuss said subject but the wisdom one shows in choosing what they do or do not discuss/answer. He not only didn't show wisdom, he was dishonest about his intent (just like the Iowa news conference with the negative ad) and then even what he actually had said when called on it.
The bottomline is that you can't answer the question of what benefit it was to ask his rhetorical question no matter if the interview is casual or not.
Just a tip: if you are running for President EVERY word you say can/will be used to judge you in the court of public opinion. Mike's playing dump while being interviewed was dishonest curiosity.
“He not only didn’t show wisdom, he was dishonest about his intent ...”
I know Governor Huckabee has said repeatedly that he never intended for the question to be included in the article (and it seems to me he’d have to be pretty dumb if he did), but I’ve never found a source where he explicitly stated his intent. Do you have such a source?
“He not only didn’t show wisdom, he was dishonest about his intent (just like the Iowa news conference with the negative ad) and then even what he actually had said when called on it.”
Wisdom? He is the only one left standing, and he did it on his own with no money to purchase a new image.
You keep telling us his internal thoughts, you keep trying to sell us an unrealistic scenario, the conversation made total sense, get back in touch with human interaction.