I think our national policy may have been skewed by viagra. I mean, seriously, old men are supposed to settle down and make thoughtful decisions. If they can still bang hookers all night long, do you think we're really getting our votes worth out of them?

EDIT: Incidentally, what's so wrong about Febreze ???

Clinton evidently didn't need Viagra. Did you get your vote's worth out of him?

That doesn't disprove my point, though, which was: a hooker-banging politician has his "mind" on other matters. Viagra simply facilitates the hooker-banging in otherwise non-hooker-banging individuals.

Unlike Bush, yes. :p

Unlike an intern-banging politician. :-)

That would depend on what the definition of "is" is.

He was fucking monica, Bush is fucking all of us. :(

The cigar may be more comfortable. That's just me talkin'....

How glib. Clinton fucked a few more besides Monica.

If the enduring argument against Clinton is promiscuity, what does that say about his Presidency?

I think the AWB said a lot more.

The enduring argument against Clinton is not his promiscuity, but his subconscious notion that civil liberties and rights were reserved to his Administration, and not the several States or the people. Then too there was that incapacity to deny to unfriendlies considerable access to American secrets -- particularly Chinese unfriendlies, the Soviets no longer being available to betray us to. Less the Manchurian candidate than the Han Chinese one.

That's not the "enduring argument against him", but it certainly is a clue to his "don't ask don't tell" (speaking of people he fucked besides Monica) personality. It's also his relevance as a counterexample to the Viagra theory; pols have been fucking around since Kennedy, and before.

@Urbane Guerrilla: That's what I was looking for, some substantive criticisms.

@Maggie: That's what I was looking for, the lack of substantive criticisms.

Unlike the current administration, which has determined that no one should have any for our own good?