Ed, we all have our biases, you and me both.  My concern about the article is that it needs to cover a lot of bases.  Broadly speaking, to be fair to all parties concerned, let's acknowledge that a) damaging quotations are a part and parcel of partisan politics, b) there is debate about whether and when such quotations are legitimate, because c) some can be taken out of context, while d) different politicians exhibit different speaking styles and such styles can be the source of parody and such parodies are often based on at least some degree of truth, and e) sometimes politicians really are dumbasses.  Taken in a broader context, that is how artististic political characaturists and comic impressionists make their living.  Did Carter really smile broadly and instantly?  Did Ronald Reagan really say "Well" at the beginning of sentences?  Where would we be without Dana Carvey and Rich Little?  Obviously, this is an issue that both you and I feel strongly about.  Perhaps our biases just clash.  Maybe we need other people to delve into the articles and try to write something from a perspective that is neither yours nor mine.