Video: Dan Rather warns Hillary not to come off as a “chickenhawk”

posted at 9:27 pm on February 25, 2007 by Allahpundit

Portrait of a man using a term he’s clearly heard used before and just as clearly never quite grasped the definition of. But watch how quick Matthews is to ask him to clarify. You’d better believe he knows what it means.

In fairness to Document Dan, that word is a perfect description for Hillary’s line on her Iraq vote. Thanks to NewsBusters for the tip.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Danny boy sure knows that he got something right and Hillary sure wants it HER way or no way period!

bones47 on February 25, 2007 at 9:37 PM

Was that a lucid moment from Dan?

csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 9:55 PM

I have been wondering about the context in the way the term chicken hawk is being used lately. I can remember seeing a TV magazine special decades ago using that term for young male whores in Hollywood. I unfortunately did a Google search and learned way more than I ever wanted to know about Homosexuality.

“This type of homosexual activity is referred to in the trade as “chicken hawk” (the male adult pervert) and the “chicken” the young victim. And it is part of the sickening homosexual life style.”

Maybe it does fit some moonbats

abinitioadinfinitum on February 25, 2007 at 10:24 PM

Was that a lucid moment from Dan?

csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 9:55 PM

Dan says, “This is very dangerous for the Democrats. In the end, it may be the best thing for them …”. Yeah, if it’s very dangerous for the chickenhawk Democrats, then it could be the “best thing for them U.S.”

Matthews (usually such a blathering idiot that I cannot stand to listen to him; thanks, AP, for doing the dirty work) gets it right also we he describes this as a kind of “exam re-do” (“I was sick; give me another re-do”). Wonderful representatives in Congress to say, “opps. I need a re-do.” Life is serial and has consequences; no re-dos allowed. (repentance, yes, not re-do.)

IrishEyes on February 25, 2007 at 10:24 PM

What’s the frequency, Kenneth?

bloggless on February 25, 2007 at 10:25 PM

Why didn’t he warn her not to come off as a two-faced, lying, power-hungry…D’oh! Too late.

thedecider on February 25, 2007 at 10:31 PM

What’s the frequency, Hillary?

bloggless on February 25, 2007 at 10:33 PM

Just hearing Matthews voice draws the bile to to back of my throat. That coupled with Rather’s voice makes the whole clip unbearable.

x95b10 on February 25, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Heard Rush giving the same basic analysis, except Rush was basically saying the Dems have just written their ticket to oblivion with their anti-war antics. Could it be that when Rush says he’s “show-prep” for the rest of the media, it acually includes Rather? Man does he look/sound like a retread.

smellthecoffee on February 25, 2007 at 11:13 PM

smellthecoffee on February 25, 2007 at 11:13 PM

I agree. I’m not swayed by the last election – THAT was a commentary on the Bush administration. The left, however, can’t seem to separate itself from the lunatic fringe – an undesirable element that prevents dems from having any mass appeal to moderates (and certainly not among conservatives) and will ultimately boil down to the root cause of its undoing. I say, “bring it on”.

thedecider on February 25, 2007 at 11:29 PM

The left, however, can’t seem to separate itself from the lunatic fringe – an undesirable element that prevents dems from having any mass appeal to moderatesPM

Even Hillary, whom I thought was being so disciplined. I felt like I could almost see her lips moving saying “Swing voters, go for the swing voters” over and over like a Hare Krishna, but she’s abandoned the center, which is where the action is (and where Rudy can kick a**), and has fallen off message harder than a drunk falling off the wagon. I hate her, but I’ve always marvelled at her unabashed, Machievellian cynicism. Now it turns out she’s just as stupid as all the rest of them. Every time she tries to sound firm she gets this tone of voice. . . I’m like, where have I heard that tone before? Then it hit me–it’s the same tone my mom used to use when she was telling me to clean up my room for the fifth time.

smellthecoffee on February 25, 2007 at 11:45 PM

I don’t want Clinton fatigue to set in until AFTER she gets the nomination.

Mojave Mark on February 26, 2007 at 1:27 AM

This is going to be a fun campaign.

right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 1:48 AM

Another “skid mark” on the bowl of politics……..

Am I the only one asking the question, “If Dan Blather is just a journalist, and he is supposed to be impartial, why the heck is he on this political show?”

What about “Abel Danger”?

What about “Jamie Garilleck”?

What about “Sandy “Papers in my Pants” Burglar”?

What about the letter from AQ that said the US was “winning” that was never publizied, and could have possibly ended this war??????

PinkyBigglesworth on February 26, 2007 at 2:21 AM

I need some mouthwash..

Viper1 on February 26, 2007 at 7:46 AM

Dan, Dan….trying to salvage anything from a lackluster career buried in half-truths and obvious partisanship.

wryteacher on February 26, 2007 at 8:13 AM

Dan ? Dan ? Dan ? Oh yeah, now I remember. He was/is an IDIOT’S idea of an IDIOT.

oldelpasoan on February 26, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Dan who?

seejanemom on February 26, 2007 at 9:02 AM

I am sorry, I missed the last part of the sentence. Dan would rather do what? Or is it Dan rather than who?

right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 3:12 PM