The Results from Pennsylvania and that “Elitism Thing”

In looking at the results from Pennsylvania, I’m comforted by one fact, even though my guy didn’t win: Should a democrat assume the White House in November, our president, Clinton or Obama, will be much smarter than I am. And that’s what I want.

I hear the perhaps accurate/certainly trivial comments that Senator Clinton is not as warm and friendly as we would like and that Senator Obama’s "bitter" remark made him seem like a sheltered brat. And I don’t care. I don’t vote for a president based on who I want holding my hair while I throw up. I’m voting for who will excel int the chair of the most powerful position on earth. So I’m with John Stewart here when I say "Not only do I want an elite president. I want someone who is embarrassingly superior to me."

George Washington presided over the founding of our great democracy despite being a highhanded snob who insisted his soldiers call him "your highness." Abraham Lincoln, despite his own conflicted racial values, steered America through the war that ended slavery. FDR snatched us back from a devastating economic depression but was born a pampered aristocrat.

These are three of America’s greatest presidents who wouldn’t have lasted a day on the campaign trail if held to today’s ridiculous standards of "likeability." So please. Talk of a candidates presentation and personal life if you must. Politics is a dirty game. But can we stop thinking superior governing skills and intellectual capabilities are a curse if that person isn’t someone you want to shoot skeet with? Can we start electing remarkable leaders and not remarkable drinking buddies? Because we all saw how that turned out last time.

(via Megan Daum’s recent column for the inspiration).

• Category: Current Affairs