D's Wheeze? It's Sleaze!
They're up to their old tricks again at the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal). We posted previously about the magnificent journalism of Deborah, who apparently never met a quote she couldn't doctor. If she claims someone on Fox said something, you can take it to the bank that they didn't.
Example: here's Debbie telling us what Juan Williams said about Obama and Clinton on Fox:
Williams admitted that it's Hillary FOX doesn't like but Obama has always done " So well" [sic] on FOX.Of course what Juan actually said is considerably different from Deb's doctored quote:
WILLIAMS: In fact, there are people on Fox who really don't like Hillary Clinton, and have been very rough on Hillary Clinton, and they've almost treated Obama like a saint, oh yeah, treat him well, he's the guy that's come along, and he's the one that's going to defeat Hillary Clinton.See how it works? Rewrite what people say, smear them with a lie...it's all perfectly acceptable if it helps you attack the evil Fox.
Just today, D was at it again, plastering a bold-type headline for another outrage from the evildoers at FNC:
Chris Wallace: "Obama Wheezing To The Finish Line"What is she talking about? Deb continues, and note the use of quotation marks, usually a tip-off to another counterfeit quote:
When Bob Beckel appeared Wallace said, " Barack Obama is wheezing to the finish line"You guessed it. Once again, Debbie's sleazy purported "quote" falls somewhat short of verbatim. Here's what Mr Wallace really said:
WALLACE: Bob, I'm sure you were listening in our conversation with the panel a moment ago. Your thoughts on this idea that Barack Obama is "wheezing to the finish line"?So Deb took Wallace's question about what someone else said and turned it into a declarative statement Wallace never made: "Obama is wheezing to the finish line".
As we know, the credulous kennel-dwellers swallow both Deb's imaginary indignation as well as her counterfeit quotes:
- Fox will never give ANT [sic] Democratic candidate a kudo unless they become neocons.
- what planet are these people living on? "Wheezing to the finish line"? Sounds more like Old Man McCain to me. If world peace broke out tomorrow and all the starving people in the world were fed at the same time, these people would find something wrong with it. What a negative bunch of f***ers. Must suck to be them.
- "Wheezing"I think they want to start refering to his smoking now. That must be going [sic] to be the new talking points for Fox now.
- "Wheezing"?!?! These talking heads at [Fox] News really know how to rattle their moronic viewers.
In many ways, Mr. Obama is wheezing across the finish line after making a strong start: He has won only 6 of the 13 Democratic contests held since March 4, drawing 6.1 million votes, compared with 6.6 million for Mrs. Clinton.Only in the echo chamber of the Fox haters can the newspuppies get away with doctoring quotes to deceive dim-witted dupes, and then stir up phony fury over FNC for the crime of citing political analysis out of this morning's New York Times. liars fox news
notveryhow
For a person who puts up a post just dripping with sarcasm and calls newshound posters "dimwitted dupes",you react very strongly to the suggestion that Newshounds makes you angry.
What Juan actually said is"When he comes on Fox he's treated 'so well' " It's right at the beginning of your audio clip.And that is what Deborah said that he said.I don't see the problem.
As for Mr Wallace,the words did indeed come out of his mouth.To me,it doesn't matter if he was borrowing someone elses phrase,he repeated it.
If he was not trying to convey an powerful image of a weakened Obama,why would he borrow that phrase?Why not just say that Obama was making a weak finish.
As for the NYT as a source,there is a lot of material in that paper.I'm sure Mr Wallace could have found others.Some might even have been complimentary.
But you gotta know I was just teasing you about the reason I defend the newshounds women.I really do it to keep you honest.
June 1, 2008, 9:44:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
danny
Deborah is too easy of a target for criticism. I remember that she once accused people at Fox for smearing Ted Kennedy for his role in Chappaquiddick. Smearing!!!! As I posted, smearing Kennedy for his behavior at Chappaquiddick would be extremely unnecessary. I mean, his behavior was so bad that there is no need to resort to a smear. Oh and she grossly misspelled Chappaquiddick. Right after her gaffe, I concluded that Deborah really is not very smart.
Making a big thing out of the phrase "wheezing to the finish line" when A) there is nothing wrong with the phrase and B) and when a liberal . . . uh excuse me . . . a highly respected news source said it first . . . again demonstrates that there are startling limits to Deb's intelligence.
June 1, 2008, 10:02:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
Danny,if I repeat some colorful language I've heard about you,you won't get mad,it won't mean anything,because I borrowed them from someone else,right?
June 1, 2008, 10:11:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> And that is what Deborah said that he said.I don't see the problem.
That's not the part that Deborah doctored. She changed Williams's very reasonable statement that there are PEOPLE at Fox who dislike Hillary and like Obama (which is true) into something quite different: "FOX" doesn't like Hillary--something Juan Williams NEVER SAID. I can't believe you are so unsophisticated as not to see the difference.
> As for Mr Wallace,the words did indeed come out of his mouth.
What words were those? The words that Deb presented as a direct quote: "Obama is wheezing to the finish line"? When exactly did that sentence ever come out of Wallace's mouth? Here's a hint: NEVER! She took Wallace's question referencing a discussion about a New York Times article (from the paper's top political reporting team, including Adam Nagourney) and wilfully doctored it to make it look like Chris Wallace opined that "Obama is wheezing to the finish line". He didn't. He asked a question based on the reporting of the New York Times.
Once again, I don't really believe you are not sharp enough to see how putting words in Wallace's mouth and presenting doctored phraseology masquerading as verbatim quotes is anything other than dishonest and deceitful. So what is it, then? Do you have a vested interest in seeing people's words misquoted if they are on Fox? Are you a designated apologist for the newsliars, here to claim that a doctored quote is actually verbatim? I mean, I was born at night, but not last night.
June 1, 2008, 10:15:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Haloscan's been f'ing up for me tonight, but I tried to post a response to that as well johnny...
notveryhow:
1. Claiming that "it's Hillary FOX doesn't like" is very different from "there are people on Fox wo really don't like Hillary". You are equating alleged individuals' opinions with an entire network.
2. Wallace's quote does not constitute a personal feeling, it is a request for a response to the quote. See the difference?
C. Are you seriously claiming that the NYT are fair and balanced? LOL
Just keeping you honest, hvh.
June 1, 2008, 10:20:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Apparently nvh thinks it's defensible for Deborah to present direct quotes--in quotation marks, no less--that aren't verbatim quotes at all. If she changes what she puts between the quote marks, that according to nvh is perfectly acceptable.
Only an apologist would really believe such a thing.
June 1, 2008, 10:24:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
FF, Haloscan is really misfiring tonight. But hey, it's not really Haloscan. Maybe it's...Fox! Or Rupert Murdoch. Over at the kennel (also burdened with haloscan) they have it all figured out:
Someone has hacked into the website or sent a virus. Newshounds you need to check and see.
Granny...I agree, something nefarious here...the site itself has been taking an awfully long time to load today. This has happened before, but with Haloscan.
We would be entirely too naive to think that some neocon entity out there hasn't hacked the site or....
This is, after all, THE #1 critic of Fox "news".
June 1, 2008, 10:35:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
I heard that Murdoch himself is watching this site and learning virus programming just to disrupt our access with DDOS's. It's a neo-con conspiracy to silence free speech!
June 1, 2008, 10:47:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
Your words "Deb's doctored quote"
The only thing I saw in quotes was "So well" on Fox.
As to changing the intent of Mr Williams words,I'll have to go along with you.Going to the general "Fox"from the specific "some individuals"is stretching the point,and unfair.That is why I get annoyed when people paint MSNBC on the basis of what KO has done.
And I'm going to admit that,upon rereading Deborahs post,the "Obama wheezing to the finish" is inaccurate.
But I repeat my point.If the intent of the question was to ask about a weakened condition,there were many other phrases that would have been less pejorative. It would be the equivalent of asking about McCains,anemic,palsied performance in a speech.But I'm splitting hairs.
As to who I represent,I'm on my side.
And Fox fan,when did I say anything about NYT being fair and balanced???
June 1, 2008, 10:51:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
And Fox fan,when did I say anything about NYT being fair and balanced???
notveryhow | 06.01.08 - 10:56 pm | #
As for the NYT as a source,there is a lot of material in that paper.I'm sure Mr Wallace could have found others.Some might even have been complimentary.
notveryhow | 06.01.08 - 9:49 pm | #
Shortmemory? In other words, you say the NYT likely posited both sides. Good luck with that!
June 1, 2008, 10:56:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> there were many other phrases that would have been less pejorative.
Oh sure. That's true enough. But it wasn't Wallace's phrase; he was working from a discussion of Adam Nagourney's thesis in the NYTimes, I just think it's dishonest to phrase it as Wallace's statement of opinion (which it wasn't) and getting all huffy about it as a "Fox talking point" when it was the work of the NYT.
Now if you want to argue that the NYT used an overly pejorative phrase, I won't argue over that as it's a fair opinion. But then to say that Fox is evil for discussing the Times's analysis (without bothering to tell anyone that it was from the NYT) is just dishonest on the hounds' part.
BTW, I could have gone after Deb's claim that Fox was trying to paint Obama's nomination as "spiraling down and poised to lose", when in fact both Beckel and Rove, and as I recall everyone on the separate analysis panel, said the exact opposite: that Hillary doesn't stand a chance and Obama has basically got it locked up. Another deception, another--if you will--lie, concocted just to smear Fox.
June 1, 2008, 10:57:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
I am losing far too many posts to continue this.Gotta go.No,I'm not running away.
June 1, 2008, 11:06:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
Fox Fan | Homepage | 06.01.08 - 11:01 pm |
Well,they did post "wheezing to the finish".God Lord,man.Is that a positive?
June 1, 2008, 11:08:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
notveryhow | 06.01.08 - 11:13 pm | #
So the NYT is fair and balanced, aka unbiased? Or not?
This has nothing to do with the Fox quote, which was just that- a quote.
June 1, 2008, 11:17:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
yea.i know,i said I was going.
it just occured to me.Our of a long article,why did Fox choose the "wheezing" phrase as a point of discussion?it wasn't the title of the article.
Granted it was colorful,but again,pejorative,if the intent was just to discuss the condition of Obama's campaign.
How about if Mccain's campaign was described as 'doddering","anemic" or "losing time-space orientation"
June 1, 2008, 11:19:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
Did you believe the NYT when Judith Miller was writing pro-war pieces.Did you mock Dick Cheney when he refered to a NYT article that he himself had leaked to the Times.
I believe that they make mistakes,like any humans.I also believe that they try to present the news as they see it. The editorial page leans liberal (but not that far).And recall that Kristol and Friedman write for them.
June 1, 2008, 11:24:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> why did Fox choose the "wheezing" phrase
That's an interesting side question, and if Deb had written an article phrased in that way, I would have little or nothing to say about it. It would be a straightforward, honest line of inquiry. My point of course is that she did not post an article that was either straightforward or honest.
June 1, 2008, 11:25:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
No I really gotta go.Did anyone see Hannity take on the Ivory Billed woodpecker tonight?
June 1, 2008, 11:28:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
That really fits better in the open thread, but I didn't see it. I quit after Ferraro's segment to watch Million $ Password.
June 1, 2008, 11:29:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply
danny
notvery,
The question is really silly (hope you don't take that as an insult; I am referring to your question and not to you). Wheezing is mild to the uh colorful things I have been called on the Newshounds site. And if it were true . . . if I were just limping across some real or metaphorical finish line . . . I would not be upset at all. I'd just think someone was telling the truth.
It is just really foolish to confute wheezing with some really derogatory term. Frankly, I don't care whether Fox said it or NYT said it . . . it is a good description of the way Obama seems (at this point) to be finishing the race. My Gawd, if Obama (who is sensitive to his big ears) can't even take that heat, he really should get out of the kitchen! Let McCain do the cooking. As he proved in Vietnam, he can take heat.
June 1, 2008, 11:43:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
And I'm going to admit that,upon rereading Deborahs post,the "Obama wheezing to the finish" is inaccurate.
by nvh
Did you happen to let Deb know?
June 1, 2008, 11:56:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
The editorial page leans liberal (but not that far).And recall that Kristol and Friedman write for them.
notveryhow | 06.01.08 - 11:29 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"General Betray-us."
What more could you ask for from a "editorial page leans liberal (but not that far" kind of newspaper? Not lol...
June 2, 2008, 12:02:00 AM EDT – Like – Reply
On The Mark
NVH:
A very good point about the NYT, Miller and the staunch pro-Bush/pro-war stance at the onset of the invasion. Simpletons always scream about the NYT being liberal without ever having read a single word in a single column in a single edition of the NYT. Fact is, news coverage in the NYT is often skewed to the right, and it has long been so. When RW'ers get trapped by facts they start screaming "liberal". It's a pathology. We see the same thing about their fear and loathing of MSNBC and even CNN. There are bright and articulate conservatives, to be sure, but they must feel like they are drowning in a sea of simpletons.
June 2, 2008, 12:15:41 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Alessandro Machi
Most definitely a weird year when FOX television is nicer to Hillary Clinton than either CNN or MSNBC.
http://www.CampusCheating.com
http://www.Florida-Michigan.com
http://www.Hillary-Wins.com
June 2, 2008, 12:20:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
"The Pastor Wright controversy turned into a positive for the nation"
by 'nvh'
What?
June 2, 2008, 12:21:24 AM EDT – Like – Reply
VinceP1974
The NYT leans to the right because of one or two columnists... Laugh
Ok.. FOX is a Leftist organization because of Alan Colmes and Geraldo.
Edited By Siteowner
June 2, 2008, 12:30:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
otm has made the same idiotic claim about the old york times being "right wing" on OW many times. It gets funnier every time she says it, too!
June 2, 2008, 12:32:55 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
It really doesn't matter who the columnists are. Has anyone ever seriously suggested that Adam Nagourney is a "right wing" reporter? I mean, the suggestion is patently silly.
June 2, 2008, 12:41:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply
On The Mark
I too stayed with Hannity through Ferraro, and there was a certain poignancy about Ferraro. Yesterday, at the DNCRC meeting, something very, very important happened, far more important than the disposition of the Florida and Michigan delegates and the final nail in the Clinton campaign: the Clintons, after 16 years, ceased to control the party. Leadership passed or was wrested. Historically, the last setting Democratic president controls the party. Yesterday, was nothing short of a revolution, a coup. That explains the profound bitterness and confusion and lethargy of the Clinton core, Davis, Ickes, McAuliffe, etc. They saw power seep through their fingers, and they are consigned to an uncertain future. Much the same thing is evident with Ferraro. I have always admired and respected Ferraro, but as the party has moved beyond her, she has turned into a shrill and sullen shrew. I suspect we'll be seeing even more of Ferraro as Hannity's Obama Bash proceeds through its next five (5) months' run.
Given Murdoch's confessed fondness of and admiration for Obama, however, and his tendency toward micro-management, I have to wonder just how long this will be allowed to continue. And, on a practical level, the Obama Bash fanbase is finite and small.
June 2, 2008, 12:46:22 AM EDT – Like – Reply
On The Mark
In my discussion item, Johnny, the operative word is "often". I stand by that. Some people argue that FNC is far and balanced because for a Hannity it has a Colmes. Rather simplistic, and I would be surprised if you clung to that, but maybe Nagourney is the NYT's Colmes. It is one way to achieve fairness and balance I suppose.
At any rate, the liberal bias of the NYT is a simplistic formulation ill-suited to any meaningful discussion, as I am sure you would agree, much akin to the simplistic formulation of FNC being the Propoganda Ministry of the RNC, the meaninglessness of which I confess.
June 2, 2008, 12:52:00 AM EDT – Like – Reply
danny
As we found during its recent fiasco, the NYT has at least two departments that function independently. The first is the editorial department, which leans to the left with a few exceptions. Then you have the news department, which seems to list even more to the left. This is why the editorial board could endorse John McCain for the Republican nomination, while the news department at the same time was preparing a story that mercilessly trashed McCain . . . even to the point of strongly suggesting that McCain is having an extra marital affair.
June 2, 2008, 1:09:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply
danny
Compounding the NYT's credibility problems is the fact that many of its reporters do not know the difference between an editorial and a news story. Thus, they often place their liberal opinions into what is supposed to be an objective news story.
June 2, 2008, 1:11:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
the Obama Bash fanbase is finite and small.
On The Mark | 06.02.08 - 12:51 am | #
All we need is 51%.
June 2, 2008, 1:28:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
30% are coming from the (d) side. So, 51% shouldn't be too hard to get.
June 2, 2008, 1:29:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply
VinceP1974
The Clinton backers are seething against Obama.. i wouldn't count on those votes
June 2, 2008, 2:03:34 AM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
Now I realize what puzzled me.A good nights sleep will do that.JD,you stated that "Debbie's sleazy purported "quote" falls somewhat short of verbatim" and you refered to a "counterfeit quote".
Now strictly speaking, what fell within the quotation marks were words that Wallace had uttered.It was not a complete quote,but it was an accurate one,in that Wallace had used these words in that order.
And thus my confusion.I was looking for the "doctored quote".
It seems to me that Deborah was making a broader complaint about Wallaces description of the Obama campaign as "wheezing".She makes note of Wallace repeating the phrase again to Rove.And you noted that the question that Wallace asked refered to a previous discussion on Fox when "wheezing to the finish line" had been discussed.
So Deborah,IMO,had used imprecise language (lots of that going around),but I don't think the intent was to decieve,any more than your use of "counterfeit quote" was an attempt to decieve.Just imprecise language,a "C" paper.Though if I were the NYT,I'd send Fox a bill.
June 2, 2008, 6:54:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
So I could write this:
NotVeryHow: "Obama Wheezing to the Finish Line"
THen add this:
NotVeryHow said "Obama is wheezing to the finish line". You'd think from the way he talks the Obama campaign is spiralling downward and heading for defeat.
And you would agree that these are accurate reports of what you just wrote above? They correctly reflect opinions you stated? They haven't been doctored in any way? Whatever.
> I don't think there was any intent to deceive...
After Deb has pulled this stunt a dozen, two dozen, three dozen times? Over and over? All those "verbatim" quotes of hers that aren't? And each and every time to make Fox look bad for something that actually wasn't said? I'd say with a track record like that, you have to be pretty gullible to think she is anything other than what she is.
June 2, 2008, 9:38:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
Zactly.
June 2, 2008, 11:16:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply
cee
Connecting the dots between SNOBamessiah's meteoric rise in Chircago politics and the more radical religious organizations like Trinity UCC and The Nation of Islam along with those same leaders in the community like Farrakhan, Wright, Pfleger, Moss, etc. needs to wait until he is the nominee and no change can be made.
The Republicans are smart to keep their powder dry until after the convention when real voters are finally paying attention and the die is cast for the dems.
Geraldo will have to pay the $100.00 because the joint appearance of Michelle Obama and the anti-semite racist Farrakhan did happen and the other multiple connections needed by SNOBamessiah to garner favor and political clout in Chicago required such deference to the maniac. The Obamas were appealing to a very radical element in their early career and will not be able to hide that history in the GE.
HRC is the better candidate to get the dems The White House so allowing that to happen now in no way helps the Republican cause. Just like McGovern's assent in 1968, this election will go down in history as a huge missed opportunity for the dems because they allowed their very radical left fringe to run the insane assylum....basically causing their nominee to get a slim majority of votes of primary voters by playing the rules against the true front-runner and not allowing re-votes in Florida and Michigan. The real results (along with voters fleeing SNOBamessiah earlier if this history with Wright, Pfleger and the rest came out before Iowa), would have had HRC safe in the nomination back in February.
June 2, 2008, 11:29:24 AM EDT – Like – Reply
danny
cee,
I like your analysis and I hope that your conclusions are correct. However, my question is this: if there is another bomb for Obama out there, why isn't Hillary detonating it? Is she afraid of being perceived as manipulative and mean spirited? A little late now to be worrying about that, don't you think?
June 2, 2008, 11:49:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply
cee
Simple, danny, the opposition research of Clinton Co. does not have the goods. The Republicans have the evidence and do not want to mess up the dems continuing on to nominate the weaker candidate, SNOBamessiah.
Look at the leftwing blogs, they actually believe HRC is the weaker candidate against McCain and are blind to the issues at hand as a result. The excuse SNOBamessiah's behavior including thwarting the re-votes in Michigan and Florida which would have given HRC the nomination easily.
The hatred of the radical left against HRC is really getting to ridiculous levels now with VANITY FAIR rehashing old stories about BILL CLINTON!
This does not bode well for moderates in the democrat party either.
Radical candidates cannot change their stripes now when they become national candidates.
June 2, 2008, 12:24:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
danny
Simple, danny, the opposition research of Clinton Co. does not have the goods. The Republicans have the evidence
So, the operation research team of the Republicans is much more effective than the operation research team of the Clintons? Ok, I hope you are right.
June 2, 2008, 12:38:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply
tony
So I could write this:
NotVeryHow: "Obama Wheezing to the Finish Line"
THen add this:
NotVeryHow said "Obama is wheezing to the finish line". You'd think from the way he talks the Obama campaign is spiralling downward and heading for defeat.
And you would agree that these are accurate reports of what you just wrote above? They correctly reflect opinions you stated? They haven't been doctored in any way? Whatever.
> I don't think there was any intent to deceive...
After Deb has pulled this stunt a dozen, two dozen, three dozen times? Over and over? All those "verbatim" quotes of hers that aren't? And each and every time to make Fox look bad for something that actually wasn't said? I'd say with a track record like that, you have to be pretty gullible to think she is anything other than what she is.
johnny dollar | Homepage | 06.02.08 - 9:43 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny; you hit the nail right on the head with this. As much as it is true, the left fringe will argue it anyway.
June 2, 2008, 2:38:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
JD,
Simply stated,what falls between the quotation marks is the quote.To doctor the quotes is to change what is within the quotation marks.If you have not done that,you have not "doctored the quote".
Now if you want to say that not including the entire statement is "doctoring" a quote,then Jeramiah Wright is a classic victim of someone "doctoring" quotes.But I don't think you want to say that.
June 3, 2008, 2:58:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
If you take this statement:
JOE ZILCH: Did you hear that SAM ZILCH said Regis Philbin is a Communist? What do you think of that?
And then you report it thusly:
Joe Zilch smeared Regis today. Zilch said: "Regis Philbin is a Communist".
You aren't changing the words. But you are misrepresenting what the person said to mislead your readers. And to boot you are taking a fragment of a sentence and presenting it as a sentence. It's dishonest. It IS doctoring a quote, snipping more words out of a sentence than you actually use, for the purpose of making Poor Joe Zilch look like he's calling Reege a Commie.
It's dishonest. Even The Smallville Torch would give the heave-ho to a writer who did that sort of thing, and worse, over and over again.
June 3, 2008, 3:08:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
On The Mark
I always thought Regis Philbin was a Republican. I had no idea he was a Communist. Bolshevik, Menshevik or Trotskyite?
June 3, 2008, 3:24:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Speaking wheezing...
June 3, 2008, 4:38:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
How dare On the Clucker make such a outrageous and fowl, foul?, comment about the party leaders. I've been around the block quite a few times and have never seen such an egregious insult that compares the former Dem Presidents and leaders to brooding hens.
"Historically, the last setting Democratic president controls the party."
Setting- to put (a hen) on eggs to hatch them.
I insist that I have quoted Clucker as accurately as copy and paste allows and I defy anyone to question my conclusion based on Clucker's very own words.
Gee, do you think I could get a job at The Kennel?
June 3, 2008, 6:39:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
No, you couldn't, Grammie. The criteria for that job is to have no greater than a double-digit IQ, hence making the New Hound ladies, OVER qualified...
June 3, 2008, 7:24:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply
