(my deepest thanks to silverweb for locating this article in just minutes of my request):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come Back, Clinton Sex Nation
Is the country better off with a president who actually has an active libido? Hell yes.
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Bill Clinton was damn sexy. Oh yes he was. This is a given.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
They knew it was genuine. They knew Clinton was an honest appreciator of the female form. You get the distinct feeling that Clinton genuinely and respectfully and with great zeal (and yes, also some very poor taste) truly loved women, loved the female gender, so much so he screwed it all up and took it to painful and finally rather sleazy extremes.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Then there's Bush. Oh dear god.
George W. Bush does not have sex. You just know this. Dubya is not one to even remotely appreciate or even care about much less understand anything at all regarding the messy glorious divinity of women or women's pleasure and the true sticky all-American pastime.
. . . . . . . . . .
Because there is a direct and undeniable correlation between a nation's level of sexual awareness or repressiveness and its overall national level of openness or uptightness, its overall feeling of patriotic constipation. Just ask, say, Afghanistan.
. . . . . . . . . .
"A sexually attuned nation is a prosperous nation." Or, maybe: "A nation that sleeps together stays together." There. Isn't that cute? Go ahead, take it. Run with it. You know you want to. Clinton would be proud.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2003/06/11/notes061103.DTL&nl=fix