>I think that is not exactly what he said. His words were:
>
>"You know Michael, one of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.' But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie."
>
>Reading that, I don't see him calling her pregnancy "troubling" but rather the unrealistic public image presented by the media of unwed pregnancy is troubling... it still appears to me that the media is jumping on his words and twisting his meaning (or misrepresenting it) to make good headlines.

But did Natalie Portman actually make any such boasts or are those words that Huckabee is putting in her mouth. Personally, I think Huckabee has suddenly woken up to the idea of taking a shot at leading the Republican party and is trying to appeal to the inner core.

>
>
>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110304/ts_yblog_theticket/mike-huckabee-concludes-a-week-of-gaffes-by-slamming-natalie-portman
>>>
>>>So, you think an "unwed" mother is a good thing?
>>
>>In Natalie Portman's case, definitely yes.
>>
>>>Huckabee was trying to point out the fact that most unwed mothers aren't making millions, and in fact wind up living in poverty. The MSM twisted the story to be an attack on Natale, totally missing the point. I'm not really a Huckabee fan, but I think he is on point with his argument.
>>
>>Unwed mother poverty is by and large a valid point, but it's a mistake to call Portman's pregnancy "troubling". She doesn't present herself as any paragon of gestational rectitude; why is Huckabee trying to make her so? IMO the most likely, and banal, reason is he's just trying to get free publicity; a less savoury alternative is that he morally disapproves.