Serendipity. I just came across an article by Mark Morford ( San Francisco Chronicle online) which argues that mucho presidential sex is better than sexual repression in (& by) presidents. Morford notes that during the lascivious Clinton’s presidency, the nation surged onward and upward economically, while under Bush (who “does not have sex. You just know this”) the nation has been losing ground. While Clinton’s radiating sexual charm flowed during a period of “peace, …record budget surpluses, record low unemployment, international respect and admiration,” Bush’s libidinal charge is akin to a reversal, “inverted, painfully ingrown, like a bad karmic toenail.”
If it gives you pain, you have it out of course.
Comments on this entry are closed.