That person just happens to be George "W" Bush, and I wonder if Dickerson wrote an essay on W if it would sound like this. I'm guessing not.

Funny how being the "most powerful man/person in the world/planet" (to quote Dickerson) needs to be mentioned twice. What do you get for that title? Again, look at W -- look at how several hundred million people, at least, probably think that The Most Powerful Person In The World is pretty much a big loser. So with power comes ... just what, exactly? Objectivity in times of trouble?

I wish the best for our new President. But let's not go thinking that suddenly Mr. Obama is never gonna need to wash the dishes again.

What makes you think Bush has washed a dish in his entire life? He's grown up with a silver spoon in his mouth and probably doesn't even know how to turn a dishwasher on.

Greatbear, I think you missed the point. As for elitist crap,both of these men and most politicos are pretty damned priveleged and pampered compared to the rest of us, but both Bush and Obama have worked hard in their lives. I think it is extremely unfair and dishonest to try to say one (that doesn't share your label) is less than the other simply based on being "rich" neglecting to see that your man is also pretty damn rich. Obama's life will change a great dela like every other president's life has. But I hardly think he was in recent history an "every day family man".

I want to see the press at least try to shroud their bias in secrecy for a little while and contain their orgasms.

Bush has not worked hard all his life. He was born into a wealthy family and skated through most of his adult life underachieving and using his father's connections to bail himself out of one failed business venture after another.

Yes, Obama is a wealthy man today. And most of that money has come from sales of his books. But he was not born into the life of privilege that Bush was. He has had to do the dishes himself at some point in his life. Yes, as president, he will not have to do any of that for a long time. Hell, he won't he have to worry about picking out his clothes for day. Those are the perks of the job.

But let's not pretend that every president comes from the same economic background.

"Bush has not worked hard all his life. He was born into a wealthy family and skated through most of his adult life underachieving and using his father's connections to bail himself out of one failed business venture after another."

This is true. Bush comes from an old wealthy blue-blood family. Obama certainly does not (neither does his wife). This is at the heart of why his election win means so much to many of us who know what it's like to do the dishes, and struggle to make ends meet. Bush does not come from that world.

Remember when Bush 1 was running? He went to a supermarket and didn't even know what the checkout scanners were. It really hurt him during the election because it proved just how far out of touch he was with the rest of us. These people don't even know what it's like to hold real cash money in their hands, they never have to. Nor do they have to go through supermarket checkouts.

So Bush's background is to be mocked and ridiculed because of the family he was born into happened to be rich before he was born.

As for "under" acheiving? I think none of us should be speaking to that when he made it to the highest office twice and we would be lucky to get a mayoral job.

I never tried to say they were from the same economic background. But they both know hard work. Peoplefrom rich families have been known to work and held jobs of their own.

The "eat the rich" mentality is so 1980's/

In fairness to GHWB, it was actually a demonstration of a newer model scanner that could read mangled bar codes, not just the kind of scanners that had been in grocery stores since the 1970s. But the image did do a lot of damage his reelection campaign and didn't help the perception (perhaps deserved) that he was out of touch with the worries of the average voter.

EJ_MALIBU:

So Bush's background is to be mocked and ridiculed because of the family he was born into happened to be rich before he was born.

No, Bush is to be mocked and ridiculed for being the dumbest president ever.

EJ_MALIBU:

As for "under" acheiving? I think none of us should be speaking to that when he made it to the highest office twice and we would be lucky to get a mayoral job.

Reread my post. I was referring to his early adult life before he went into politics. Of course, once he entered politics, he mostly got elected by trading on daddy's name once again.

EJ_MALIBU:

But they both know hard work. Peoplefrom rich families have been known to work and held jobs of their own.

Yes, they have. And others are like Paris Hilton, spending their 20s and 30s being professional party goers. Bush falls into that same category.

EJ_MALIBU:

The "eat the rich" mentality is so 1980's/

Actually, it's one of Aerosmith's best songs from the 90s. :-)

EJ_MALIBU:

Greatbear, I think you missed the point. As for elitist crap,both of these men and most politicos are pretty damned priveleged and pampered compared to the rest of us, but both Bush and Obama have worked hard in their lives. I think it is extremely unfair and dishonest to try to say one (that doesn't share your label) is less than the other simply based on being "rich" neglecting to see that your man is also pretty damn rich. Obama's life will change a great dela like every other president's life has. But I hardly think he was in recent history an "every day family man".

I want to see the press at least try to shroud their bias in secrecy for a little while and contain their orgasms.

A rolls royce and a yugo are both cars.

Oh, c'mon! I'd at least say that Bush is a Hyundai. Or maybe an Edsell.

I don't think EJ_Malibu gets my point. I don't have contempt for Bush because he's rich. I have contempt for him because he's a lazy, worthless, spoiled brat who rode his daddy's name all the way to the White House. Being rich was just what enabled to him to get into a position where he could inflict so much damage on the country.

Being from a wealthy background is not make you a bad person or a bad politician. Look at FDR. He came from wealth and yet he created many public works programs and social security among other things. Consider the Kennedy's. Yes they may be "too liberal" for many but many of the family members have been working hard for noble causes.

Being born to wealth and privelelege clearly doesn't make Bush incompetent or bad but it has enabled him to get into Yale and skate by with "gentlemen's C's", getout of service in Vietnam and even his national guard repsonsibilities, get bailouts for his failed business ventures and get elected to office.

Since becoming president he has: invaded a country for no reason, promoted torture, held people without charge or trial, and spied on American citizens among other things and feels that he is above the law.

Maybe if he had to work or had some accountability in his earlier life he would have been a better, more competent or at the very least a more humble president.

If he traded in on his dad's name, he would not have been re-elected. GHW Bush was not re-elected and was very unpopular back in his time.

GHW Bush remained popular in Texas, where GW Bush launched his political career.

Plus, daddy still had a lot of connections within the GOP establishment, which enabled W to hook up with a disciple of Lee Atwater named Karl Rove. Perhaps you heard of him?