Laura Bush's hinting approval of Hillary Clinton gives pause.

As reported by Slate, former-First Lady Laura Bush has intimated that if given the choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton that she’d choose the latter, not the former, political parties be damned.

Laura Bush has some very specific ideas about what the country’s next president should prioritize. “I want our next president—whoever he or she might be—to be somebody who is interested in women in Afghanistan,” said the former first lady at the New York Times’ annual Women in the World summit last week. She also said that her ideal candidate would “continue U.S. policies” and “continue to do what we’re committed to do as a country.” (source)

So there you have it, the wife of one-half of the worst people to ever sit in the Oval Office has hinted that she’d vote for Hillary over Trump, but notice why. Because she wants to see someone whose worried about “the women in Afghanistan,” which is conservative-speak for “war, war, glorious war!” And so, why do we think that she’d support Hillary over Trump in that regard? Because Trump hasn’t kissed the ring of the military industrial complex, yet, that’s why.

In point of fact, this development shows me that my instincts — that Hillary isn’t far enough removed from the MIC for my personal tastes — are dead-on. I’m not in any way suggesting Hillary has an Iraq War inside her, but if Democratic voters think their party is incapable of making boneheaded foreign policy decisions, they need only remember Kennedy and Johnson were pretty much the primary drivers of the Vietnam War until Nixon took over in ’68.

Of course, who can really blame Laura? In a Sophie’s Choice of Trump or dying from loss of blood after having my taint tied to the front-end of a ’67 Buick Skylark, guess what? Bye-bye cruel world/my taint! So of course everyone in their right mind would choose someone over Hillary right? Well…that really kind of all depends on how much stock and faith you put in the checks and balances our constitutional document puts between the branches of government, doesn’t it? Me, more and more I see how Obama was treated as the norm, and it’s really hard for me to see someone like Trump ramming his idiotic and dangerous agenda through unless a whole lot of Republicans and Democrats lay down.





I know that over the last few years I’ve written satirically and not-so satirically about how shitty the GOP’s obstruction of Obama has been, but that’s because we all know Obama — no matter what the most die-hard conservative will insist — is nothing like Donald Trump outside the basic stuff like “penises” and “carbon based lifeforms.” And also because the dicks were obstructing things like just getting a D.C. district court judge a Senate confirmation hearing and universal background checks. But who among us would fault Republicans or Democrats for obstructing the living dick out of Trump? That’s something I’m kind of shocked no one on the Beltway or elsewhere has really brought up that much.

I am positive that any comments this piece receives will primarily tilt toward this:

Then I hope you don’t mind President Trump because blip-blop-blope go team go, Democrats, I’m with her, weeeeeee!

But just, calm the fuck down for a second, okay? I haven’t said that I’m “Bernie or Bust,” nor do I intend to be for now. However, the fact that someone who has slept next to George W. Bush for a few decades, even going so far as to spawn with him, would support Hillary Clinton at all gives me pause, and it should give pause to anyone who considers themselves progressive, or anti-war. Ms. Clinton is one hell of a qualified candidate, no matter what Bernie’s ill-advised gaffe might have proposed otherwise. To someone like me, though, her qualifications aren’t the only issue at hand. Her relationships with Wall Street and the military industrial complex are also very much so in play, and Laura Bush’s musings certainly remind some of us that Hillary may not be our ideal candidate.