Channeling Dubya versus channeling Hillary; or, lawyers versus lab rats

In my first post about Jamie Gorelick, I was operating under the (since-corrected) misimpression that Dubya had picked Ms. Gorelick for the 9/11 Commission.  From press reports, I can't quite piece together exactly who from the Democratic powers-that-be in Congress designated her.  But given her past connections in the Clinton administration, it's not unreasonable to assume that Hillary at least checked off on the choice.

I originally imagined that it was Dubya leading the "here's full disclosure, now do you want to waive the potential conflict" speech to John Q. Public.  I support Dubya; I voted for him twice for Governor of Texas and once for President; I'm in shouting distance of his generation and I grew up about an hour's drive from Midland, Texas.  So it's no great leap for me to try to channel a bit of Dubya-speak, right down to the mock-mangled "bipartificial."

But I've been trying to imagine how Hillary would give that same speech, and — I'm sorry, I can't focus a coherent thought, I'm too busy trying to control my shivering and twitching.  It's too great a stretch.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite lawyer jokes: 

Q: Why is it that scientific labs are switching en masse from lab rats to lawyers for their experiments? 

A: Three reasons:  First, the lawyers are more plentiful.  Second, the lab techs don't get so attached to them.  And third, there are some things a lab rat just can't be persuaded to do.

But I can't persuade myself to channel Hillary.  I keep imagining that I'd lose control, and I hear the voice of Dana-Carvey-as-the-Church-Lady asking who it is that's inhabiting my body:  "Could it be ... SATAN?"  Not gonna do it.  Wouldn't be prudent.  Just can't go there.  Sorry.