I think a more appropriate question would be “who would you want to start for the next 4 years to give you the best chance to win?”

With Palin, and really what you are getting at is Obama, the argument is not about talent, but about caring. Palin appears to care more about others while Obama appears to care more about himself, or at least about his ideology, than he actually cares about people.

I hate that yankee “fans” boo Arod, because I know they didn’t boo him last year when he carried the team into the playoffs. I hate how they state how he’s unclutch, when his career playoff numbers are better than 95% of the team, despite the fact that he had 2 really terrible years. Also they choose to ignore how he carried the team past Minnesota back in the 2004 postseason.

So its safe to say I hate people that boo A-Rod. So there I am enjoying the last home game, and this group of older men are sitting behind me booing him and making remarks about how low his RBI total is. So I turn around and tell them how RBI’s are meaningless, even though he has over 100 and missed 3 weeks of the season. They respond with how that doesn’t matter, he’s still unclutch. Then they ask me who I rather have, Brosius or A-Rod.

Obviously I answer A-Rod and they laugh and remark how they’d take brosius because he delivers when needed. Needless to say at this point my ears started to bleed. #1, Brosius retired 7 years ago, he isn’t coming back. And even if he did, to take him over Arod is ridiculous. Arods won 2 MVP’s, and should be in the Top 5 this year in an “off” year. Brosius was a nice player for NY, played great defense and had an amazing 1998. However he was a below average player in 99 and 2000, and was just barely average in 2001.

Needless to say I wanted to punch these guys for wasting 10 minutes of a night I’ll never get back. I’m a Yankee fan and I hate most Yankee fans.

Not wanting to get into a discussion of whether some of the repulican administrations may or may not have been “successful”, obviosuly I ama aware that other than Jimmy Carter Clinton is the only Democratic president during the last 40 years. I gues what I was trying ot say, and obviously didn’t communicate effectively, is that if they have had so much trouble even getting elected to the White House, and Clinton was the one who was able to accomplish that, wouldn’t you think they would want to find the next Bill Clinton politically, and not run screaming from his legacy to the extremes of their party?

However, it’s not analogous to the political environment. Baseball success comes from fielding the best players. Political success comes from fielding the best leaders. It is easy to objectively identify the best baseball players. It is virtually impossible to identify the best leaders using any objective measure. Education, for example, would put GWB and Obama at pretty much the same level.

Webster’s uses the term “snobbery” in its definition of elitist. In the political vernacular today, I think that is the exact definition that is being referenced. Fairly or unfairly, Bush has rarely been referred to as an elitist – while Obama often is – despite the fact that they have roughly equal educations and Bush came from a far more privileged background. The reason for this is because Bush rarely comes across as a condescending snob, while it is the very essence of Obama.

Putting it back into the sports context, the point can best be analogized to choosing a team captain (i.e. leader). Drew may be a superior (more elite) player than Pedroia, but I’d venture to say that there’s not a player on that team that believes he’s a better leader, or would vote for him over Pedroia as captain. And that’s because he has an elitist attitude.

Of course you’re aware that Nixon won in 1968. So in 40 years, other than 4 years of Jimmy Carter – Clinton is the ONLY Democratic President.

Maybe that’s the problem. I think you’re first statement was the correct one.