I had a dream last night. In it Karl Rove decides to direct a film about Bill Clinton. He figures he wants to sell the film mostly to Republicans. He focuses on Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinski, which culminates with the end of Clinton's reign in the White House. Karl notes there's only has a few lines about oral sex in the official Ken Starr report on the issue. But, this doesn't slow him, and he has the last hour of a two hour film concentrating on the oral sex in excruciatingly pornographic detail, all the while Clinton is supposed to be running the most powerful nation in the world. He works a marketing campaign with Republican groups across the country, and releases the film.

In my dream the Republicans go wild, buying out theatre after theatre, day after day. It's like red meat to the wolves---the Republicans claim THIS is the real Clinton and any historical film in the past misses what's really important about Clinton. Karl Rove is proud. The film outsells all other films about presidents.

The Washington Post writes a review that although Karl seems to capture the Lewinski affair (way too much sex, they say though!) the Post says Karl Rove seems to miss the entirety of the Clinton story, that maybe Karl should have talked about Clinton's youth, his alcoholic father, the work he did as a Arkansas governor, how he lost the governorship reelection then later won it, the stupidity of his affairs with various Arkansas women, the marriage to Hilary, the election in '92 over an incumbent president, the health care debacle, the standoff in '95 with Newt Gingrich, the tax increases that no Republican voted for but fueled 8 years of a soaring economy and budget surpluses, and then the Lewinski story---Clinton's stupidity and Ken Starr's tyranny.

In essence, the Post claims only by understanding the whole of the Clinton's life can people really begin to understand William Jefferson Clinton's importance, failures, and victories.

Then in my dream Mark Steyn writes a scathing rebuttal to the Post. He claims the Post seems to want a "Wimp Clinton" when the only true Clinton can be understood by concentrating on one, and only one, timeframe of Clinton's career---the Monica chapter. Steyn says anybody who wants a full story is a fool. Steyn ends his essay by saying this MUST be the best, accurate, intelligent portrayal of Clinton---just look at how much money it made and how many Republicans went to the show and were in total awe.

The crucifixtion of Christ was the ultimate culmination of Christ's life. He lived to die. His death as a sacrifice for humanity was his purpose for coming and is a complete reflection of His character; enduring the torture while forgiving the torturers.

I would say that a lot of Clinton's character is wrapped around the Lewinsky episode. That's the more like the real guy than the facade he displays. He wanted to blame everyone else (Starr, Limbaugh, VRWC). I despise his behavior but hope he has or will change. The man is hugely talented and has overcome so much but that episode summed up so much about him. I will never forget Clinton walking out of church after the Ron Brown memorial service with Tony Campolo. They were yucking it up until Clinton realized they were on camera and we got the lower lip.

With Christ you truly got the real deal. Clinton nor anyone else merits a comparison.

I guess I'm probably in one of my too vague moods and overly metaphorical and maybe just wrote this poorly. I certainly don't mean to compare Clinton to Jesus. I'm not talking about Clinton at all actually. This could appear horribly insulting to Christians if read as a Clinton-Jesus comparison, so I want to say I certainly didn't mean that.

I just thought Steyn wrote a bad rebuttal to the Post. I felt the Post's point was Mel Gibson gave something of interest to Christians, but missed conveying something grander to the moviegoers in general to better convey Christ's and Christianity's monumental impact to the last two thousand years.

And that the amount of money a movie makes shouldn't be used as an indicator of its artistic merit.

I was the one doing more of the Clinton comparison, that's why I stopped :).

Most people who've seen 'The Passion' are probably regular church attenders who are pretty darn familiar with the teachings of Christ. What the movie did was convey something that most Christians (myself included) don't contemplate much. There have been other movies that have covered a lot of Christ's life and are poorly done. This movie just nails the ultimate act of love that makes people devote their life to Christ. Without this event then their is not a reason to follow Christ to the point of death. I will not give my life to a philosopher or a good man but will give my life for the Creator who came to the earth to die for our sins and conquer death.

Sorry to get so religious on you but that's really where it all comes from.

re: "I will not give my life to a philosopher or a good man but will give my life for the Creator who came to the earth to die for our sins and conquer death."

I hope that your passion continues to motivate you to do good, uplifting things in your life, like when you started this blog. Do great, great, positive things all your life!! I know that might sound weird coming from an agnostic, but I sincerely mean it. This world needs a few more good deeds.