TBogg links a pretty bizarre article comparing and contrasting the Administrations of Presidents Clinton and Bush, concluding that Clinton was better because of sex. Clinton was sexy, and Bush isn't. Ummm....OK.
But then, Rachel Lucas says, no, it's the other way around: Bush is way sexier than Clinton. Ummm....OK.
The whole thing reminds me of the diner scene in When Harry Met Sally...:
(Just after discussing their differences on the film Casablanca, in which Sally insists that Ilsa actually wants to leave Rick for Victor, Harry and Sally are entering a roadside diner. Harry starts to say something, but doesn't finish the thought. Sally, though, nags it out of him just as they're entering the full diner....)
HARRY: Obviously you haven't had great sex yet. (Turns to waitress) Two please.
WAITRESS: Right over there.
SALLY: Yes I have.
HARRY: No you haven't.
SALLY: (loudly) It just so happens that I have had plenty of good sex!
(Silence, the whole restaurant looks at Sally. Sally realises what she has done, walks carefully with a tilted head towards the table.)
Maybe I'm just turning into a prude here, but this whole obsession with sex in or around the Presidency strikes me as, well, lame and stupid. If we're liberals, do we really think things were better in the 1990s because Clinton was fooling around on his wife? And if we're conservatives, do we really think -- as Rachel apparently does -- that it all got better when Bush played dress-up as a pilot and did his bit of Top Gun play-acting on the aircraft carrier? Are we really this colossally stupid?
(BTW, no person who refers to Clinton as a "sexual predator" or as an "accused rapist" -- even if one uses the "strike" tag to give it a "wink, wink" quality -- is to be taken seriously. Ever.)
The personal blog of author Kelly Sedinger, chronicling the adventures of one overalls-clad wanderer.
No comments:
Post a Comment