Lesley Stedman Weidenbener has an article in the Louisville Courier Journal on some heavy hitting fundraisers being conducted in Indiana’s 9th Congressional District. Bill Clinton will be conducting a fundraiser for Once & Future Democrat Baron Hill while Laura Bush will be conducting one for incumbent trucking magnate Mike Sodrel. Weidenbener notes the attention this race is getting from the national media.
Meanwhile, Political Junkie Matt Tully asks the important question, “Laura Bush or Bill Clinton. Who would you rather dine with?”
I posted my comment to his blog post:
Bill is tremendously intelligent and has a freakish amount of charisma.
Laura is probably a very nice lady.
I’ll go with the charismatic braniac.
Meanwhile, I note that the comment of Benjamin H. strikes me as indicative of Bush supporters everywhere:
I don’t even have to think…Mrs. Bush
Bush: the choice of non-thinkers everywhere.
Dare to dream: I am going to send an e-mail to the Clinton Foundation and ask that the President (Clinton, that is) take an hour and a half jaunt up to Kokomo, in the far southern part of the 2nd district, and share some of the wealth that comes when he speaks. Whether it is on the back of a truck, a McDonalds…uh, I mean Subway restaurant, you name it, we will MAKE an event around him. Joe Donnelly needs the money as much, if not more, than Baron Hill and it really would not kill Indiana or Bill Clinton to have one more Democratic Congressman from the state in 2006.
Good luck.
Come now, Doug. You’re not being fair. I’d dine with Mrs. Bush only because I find her to be less intimidating.
I’ll take Mrs. Bush, and it is not an unthinking response. I spend enough of my time with entertaining liars.
I would rather have dinner with someone who doesn’t play golf than with someone who cheats at it.
O.k., o.k., I wasn’t fair with that last line. But the commenter who followed mine just left such an easy target I couldn’t resist.
I think I would actually choose Clinton, just because I’m curious where he REALLY stands on a lot of things. I voted for Bush, but I think I know who Laura Bush is and what she thinks, generally. Clinton had to worry about reelection, party lines, and also what ideas would make it through Congress. Just like I’m finding that I like Al Gore the enviromentalist much better than the VP, I’d like to find out what Clinton is like A.P.
Mrs. Bush easily. I’ll take class vs. chasing @ss. As was Willie’s only real White House claim to fame.
Well, aside from the peace, prosperity, balanced budgets, and mostly avoiding military quagmires that is.
What exactly does Mrs. Bush do? What exactly does she believe? All I ever hear is that she admires and supports her husband. She occasionally might utter an opinion about some little triviality, like Afghan women could use some Kotex. But other than that, I can’t think of a single noteworthy thing involving her. Maybe we would talk about her husband’s habitual lying and incompetence. That would be a good topic, I suppose. I’d frankly rather discuss mediocre lesbian literature with Lynne Cheney, all things being equal.
Peace — yeah, that North Korean agreement is working out
Prosperity — it’s amazing, when Bill is in, 4.5 percent unemployment is considered as low as is socially possible, but when Bush is in, it’s a sign of a bad economy
Balanced budgets — I think the GOP takeover in ’94 might have helped — gridlock is always a wonderful thing ;)
Military Quagmire — Yeah, it is a bit difficult to get in a quagmire when you always run at the first sign of trouble. Standing up and fighting for what you believe in isn’t always easy, but the consequences of not doing so almost always will be much more costly.
Leaders are almost always judge several years after the fact. The summer of 1864 was rough on Lincoln — now he’s considered one of the best. Washington had a rocky start as a general in 1776 — now he’s considered a hero.
Clinton’s legacy is started to become visible — and it’s not good. Bush’s may be no better — it’s too early to tell. I know who I would cast my lot with, though.
The rights of women in Afghanistan are not trival, and an air-drop of Kotex won’t fix it.
If you’re genuinely curious, read a few of these: http://www.whitehouse.gov/firstlady/flpress.html
Most are NOT about how she “admires and supports her husband”, although that’s usually all that makes it through the news, left or right slanted.
OK, I clicked on one of Mrs. Bush’s “remarks” at random and learned that Costa Rica is a democracy, and Mrs. Bush was a teacher and librarian. But I already knew that.
In regards to “quagmires”– the Balkans was a success. Clinton blinked on Somalia, while the rightwing pundits and lawmakers pissed their pants over 18 dead servicemen. Maybe they only get belligerent about low casualty counts.
Gee, I liked “masson’s blog” better without the trolls…
As far as the Bush vs. Clinton debate, I defer to the sentiment I read on a bumper sticker somewhere: “Is it worse to screw an intern or screw the country?”
“Is it worse to screw an intern or screw the country?â€
Unfortunately, I don’t think the country cares as long as everybody gets a cigarette afterwards.
Dustin Blythe wrote: Gee, I liked “masson’s blog†better without the trolls…
OK, so presenting dissenting opinion is considered being a troll. A debate of beliefs is good. I don’t care if you agree with me — believe what you want — that’s not my objective. I read others’ opinions here, even though I disagree with most, or at least those of the host, because I want to have a different perspective. What they write will either change my mind, or it will cause me to become even firmer in my belief, because it has made me examine what I believe.
That is a very good thing.
Trolls are fine.
Some messages are just chock full of goodness. I mean, wasn’t Lincoln’s greatness recognized by approximately 1865? I love the implication of him being brought up in the conversation: Perhaps one day, given enough time, Bush’s greatness will be recognized (as Lincoln’s greatness was eventually recognized). It’s just so absurd. Even if there’s an Iraqi equivalent of Appomattox in the next two years (there won’t be, but play along), there will still be the crappy fiscal policy, poor environmental record, slow job growth and negative earnings growth for the majority of Americans, the stupid smirks and utterances, and the cronyism and graft to *unfairly* tarnish this otherwise great man’s legacy.