Which of these things is not like the others?

4

Written on 11:55 PM by Jack B.

These days it seems it's getting increasingly hard for some people to tell.

Me, I'm starting to find it scary. Really scary. It's the OprahBritneyLohanization of the Presidency. Some people seem to be choosing based on how good it makes them feel personally and not on whether the person actually knows how to govern the most powerful country on Earth. Clinton I and Bush II seemed to be selected based on the same criteria. Could Abe Lincoln be elected dog catcher, let alone President, in the present day? How about John Adams? Or Millard Fillmore? Well, okay, not Fillmore.

P.S. If you still haven't quessed the answer, I recommend this site - a clever response to a very real phenomenon.

If you enjoyed this post Subscribe to our feed

4 Comments

  1. bob |

    Obama is in a whole other league when it comes to fawning worship.
    Clinton and Bush tended to at least try to inject policy as a reason to elect them.

    An interesting rumor is that much of the swooning and fainting of women at Obama's speeches is staged.

     
  2. Abu Daoud |

    Hmmm. If you had a picture of Muhammad up there (which is dangerous, we all know that) we could find a commonality.

    Both Muhammad and Barak have Arabic names and grew up without their fathers.

     
  3. Jack Bennett |

    Interesting thought. I never thought of Mohammmed, given the picture controversy.

     
  4. el |

    I like this post.

    I've given up on all candidates at this point. They were unable to produce a candidate with the ability to run our country well.

    I really don't understand the following. Sometimes I think everyone has gone crazy. I was talking to someone who said they would not go to a certain state because they votes Hillary and not Obama.

    This whole thing is really just stupid.

     

Post a Comment