The New York Times can't even give us an article on a lighter aspect of politics without slamming Vice President Cheney in some way, can they?
In Sunday's issue, the Times ran a piece exploring where the term "lame duck" came from...
As Washington prepares for a new balance of power, there has been so much talk of “lame ducks” that you would be forgiven if you thought Vice President Cheney had gone hunting again. But the political phrase of the moment is actually derived not from the hunt for waterfowl, but for riches.
They have to slam the VP, they just HAVE to!
Now, I'd like to find the NYT article talking about what the word "is" is and linking it to Clinton's inability to keep his zipper up.
FYI: "Lame duck" is taken after the early 1800's English phrase for a debtor. In a similar way that a debtor cannot raise the money to pay his debts, the lame Duck phrase was later adopted by Americans to mean politicians who weren't able to raise the votes to get re-elected.