She was called a whore earlier on this thread.
I seriously doubt that.
Uh, what part of "neither of us" has anything to do with that?
The "whore" thing is interesting. The image of a woman stuffing a dollar in a male stripper's shorts--an image articulated by the first lady for national consumption--is an image that most believing people would associate with a non-believer at best. (Neo-cons, Rinos, Yuppie-lites, Godless philistines can stop reading here.) Does anyone seriously think, when they take their wedding vows, that "forsaking all others" means the freedom to take drunken hops around nearly naked men, stuffing money in their pants? As believers, that is the sort of standard we would expect from the modern divorce culture. Even joking about it, when you know the real consequences of sin, when you have been delivered from it, when you have seen the marriages broken by pornography, and when you have to participate, unwillingly, in the great welfare state that results from it, it can't help but arouse the ire of those who "hunger and thirst after righteousness."
The simple fact is that a woman course enough to discuss this in public, in this way, has adopted a world view that is distinctly non-Christian, that is far from the Proverbs 31 standard set down for the church. The coursening that comes about when a woman takes money for sex, or pays money for titillation, as in Chippendales, is precisely the sensibility we see in Laura Bush's remarks. The fact remains that none of our 18th, 19th, or early 20th century fore-mothers would have used this sort of joke in public. I dare you to find one first lady that has engaged in this sort of humor, for public consumption, prior to 1960. Most of them would have correctly assumed these words came from a poor lost soul.