There have been quite some tail fathers of plumage pride challenges this week.
As Democrats squawk about divided about the presentations of claims of political “assets” pols show President Clinton on top, right?
This week it is concerning that we have a pecked at legislative discussion about fairness for women. It is much concerning this week that women are being over shadowed and squawked about with plumage pride challenges by their males so public and divisive.
Has the Democrat Party gone to the birds? What does that even mean?
What does “on the square” mean? How is that related to old expression “court house politicians” as like descriptive of the citizens with extra time or callings about an old court house as a gaggle publicly out on the square near the court house talking politics?
Are “court house politicians” our citizen class best for regularity at it to discerning pecking order among people as birds?
I am not sure it is time yet to say that President Clinton and President Obama are in a cock fight - this all seems more like fore play and circling so far this week. They either don’t have a full plumage it seems or it isn’t yet showing.
It does seems now that what ever each of these men actually have as political assets ordinary court house politicians can read the pols stating that President Bill Clinton is supposedly on top. Such may so then be troubled about a legal and proper “pecking order” jurisprudence.
And as for the poor women of these parties in dispute and plumage pride circling or foreplay - who among them will step out of line and cry or squawk themselves - who of these poor women for the scene so far this week either is of President Obama wanting to have his female bird Secretary of State look worth no more than 3/5ths his plumage or of Mr. President Clinton stirred to parade and challenge to appear still to be worth at least 2/5ths more than his mate specifically as of a herd alike?
It seems this circling or foreplay of Democrat male plumage on parade with what pride they can muster have timed in accidentally or purposefully to overshadow at least the women in their ranks, however, in their ranks, however in their ranks as quite confusing “in their ranks” now must be and seem.
Are you of the tail feathers of President Clinton?
Are you of the tail feathers of President Obama?
Have you also maybe divided Mrs. Hillary Clinton in half - as they seem to be about trying as per at least loyalty?
Civilly speaking to civics and even old “court house politicians” likely about a square — Does the commercial and social expression “we are all square” or “are we on the square with each other” originally derived from early American (at least) common place of a dealing or adjustment civil in kind that would pass a passing or idling on a town green amidst the “court house politicians”?
Today we wake all to political news - but are you more of plumage and paraded pride of President Obama or his seeming challenger President Clinton? With the pols showing President Clinton popularly more “on top” do you think to referees and yellow flags or red cards - are you squawking yourself maybe “extra player on the field”?
There seems to be only one fair way to get all square about this as it is touching all our community politics. There seems to be that we all are called out to our squares figuratively speaking to poke and prod both the plumage pride of President Clinton and President Obama and to comb through any seeming irregularities in a Constitutional field for proper and legal pecking order. We have now that it seems so necessary as one or both of them seem to have been at this just to make at least Mrs. Secretary Clinton appear to be worth at least 2/5ths less than either of them.